From One White Gay Male to Another: Calling out the Implicit Racism in Dan Savage's ‘Liberal’ Politics & the ‘It gets better’ Campaign"

The recent launch of Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign on MTV networks is failing to gain momentum among progressives because the campaign itself is myopic. While I applaud Savage for responding to the increasing number of gay and lesbian suicides that often follow bullying and violence, the framing of this campaign gives me pause. The campaign was developed in response to a culmination of the heartrending stories of gay and lesbian youth suicides (some of whom were youth of color-many of which have historically been unable to get national or even local media attention) within the media that reached its apex with the tragic death of Tyler Clementi, a white gay male.

Indeed, when we think of victims of homophobia-induced violence, many US citizens can easily recall the names of white gay males Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard but not Sakia Gunn, a black working class lesbian or Brandon White, a black gay youth. Why is that? Because many of the news stories prioritized within gay media outlets are framed by folk who seem to have a limited platform that favors particular persons, namely, middle-class white gay males, over some others. Savage and other middle-upper class gay white men benefit from this form of commodification. It is a hard truth that I, too, have to confront.

It is important, then, that we challenge Savage and his politics. He fails to recognize that the popularity of the campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies. Moreover, the movement has garnered international endorsement by politicians and celebrities because being gay in America, in the West, somehow speaks to the democratization of what was once considered radical, namely, gay identity. So, yeah, it gets better for queer folk in the US context, but which queer folk?

There is no national campaign for the indeterminable number of Black queer and transgender men and women that have been killed or gone missing across the country. This is not because many have not tried to create such, but because the media, and liberal gays who shape it, like Savage, don’t seem to care.

The Messenger is Important, Too

The lack of analysis of the limited racial parameters of this campaign reflects a problem critical in Dan Savage’s work and is evidenced throughout his career. Two events stand out most, however.

Dan Savage

First, the presidential election in 2008: While the majority of the world was celebrating the election of Barack Obama, Dan Savage was busy crafting his response to the “hoards” of Black voters that came out to vote in the historic election, who, as the media purported, were also voting in support of California’s Proposition 8, according to Savage:

I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president…But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual. I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

While Savage later deleted this post, and then came out on the Stephen Colbert show and said the exact opposite, his initial reaction was very telling, without ever recognizing the implications of his racially-charged statements. If he was indeed interested in critical, organic change one would think he would’ve participated in a discussion with Black queer groups to work through why blaming black people for Prop 8 was not an accident or an act of innocent misplaced anger, but consistent with century old anti-Black rhetoric.

In fact, it is this very rhetoric, which emerged during reconstruction known as “White backlash” that resonates very much within his statements. “Backlash” then was the popular response to the enfranchisement of Black people immediately after the Civil War which was viewed as a direct threat to their (White) citizenship. It continued to manifest through Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, and still does today.

In Savage’s case, Black citizenship (demonstrated via the purported turnout for Prop 8 during the election for Barack Obama) was seen as discreditable because of homophobia in the Black community. Savage finds homophobia to be more of a threat to his personhood (and that of any other white gay man) than White supremacy is a threat to any Black person. Many of the comments on his blog largely reflect this view.

In this discourse, sexuality and gender become equitable with race. They translate into even exchanges that one can simply check off on a list of rights and afforded legitimacy. Savage is prioritizing White gayness as more worthy of attention than Blackness. The problem here relates to the concerns around the motivations behind “It Gets Better,” where again, it appears that Black bodies don’t matter, or, they only matter if and only if they are designated as queer. Moreover, those non-queer Black bodies are imagined as existing outside of the frame of citizenship because they ostensibly violate the rights of enfranchised (White) gay men.

Savage should not start a campaign to take on race-based violence; honestly, he would not be good at it. But we, who look to pundits, media personalities and nationally recognized advocates, must think critically about this type of insular work and thought. We cannot narrowly challenge a topic like violence only within the context of gay youth. Is violence not a problem for everyone? Is it only young gay men and women who are bullied to death?

Second, Savages proclaimed support of the Iraq War places this argument within a global context:

War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times… To stop Islamo-fascism, we’re going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology… invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face…

Again, violence against whom? Whose lives matter? Let’s ignore the fact that Iraq was a relatively secular and liberal state in the Middle East and let’s forget that they had no weapons of mass destruction or substantial links to Al-Queda. At worst, Savage is calling for violence against innocent people, at best, he affirms that his freedom as a White gay American is more important than that of a free Iraqi or Saudi, Afghani for that matter.

The position against anti-gay violence is not at all in contradiction with anti-Black or Anti-Arab and/or Muslim violence. A stance against anti-gay violence is unacceptable if it only imagines the White gay subject as its focus. This framework defines the rights and liberties of people of color as diametrically opposed to the further entitlement of white gay men. We, white/queer/male folk, who are the beneficiaries of privileging discourses and practices like the ones Savage employs, must speak out and act up. It is unacceptable that violence against Gay (read: White) men is intolerable while violence against non-white peoples is normalized and accepted.

____________________________________

Kirk Grisham earned his B.A. in Urban Studies at Queens College, City University of New York. During his tenure as a student, he worked in various health care and labor justice organizations throughout the city, building on the experience he gained working in the Oakland Public Schools and at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in California. He currently works at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health as a researcher in the Department of Sociomedical Sciences where he is part of a dynamic team that focuses on the social and sexual behavior and health of young African-American men who have sex with men. He is also part of a project aimed at learning more about relationship dynamics among white, Black, and interracial couples. Outside of his work at Columbia, Kirk focuses his writing, activism and exploration on health, education, and welfare and has particular interest in HIV stigma and criminalization, technology, and citizenship. His writing has been featured on websites such as Wiretap, Alternet, Youth Outlook, AIDS Connect, National Sexuality Resource Center, Youth Radio, AIDS Foundation of Chicago’s Lifelube Project, Colorlines, Black AIDS Institute and KenyonFarrow.com.

You may also like...

200 Comments

Martyn

February 28, 2012 at 3:00 am

I think these are great points. I'd like to add a thought about the It Gets Better Campaign. I think its fine, but it needs another dimension (in addition to the important one the author brings up).
Not only will it hopefully get better, but also, its not fair. You shouldn't put up with it. AND we are holding society accountable and demanding change.
I think this is an important dimension, instead of just asking young people to be patient and wait it out. That doesn't really work because a) young people aren't patient and b) its not right that the burden should be on them to wait out what should be some of the most exciting years of their lives. the burden should be on everyone to create a more peaceful and nurturing world.

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

Hi Martyn,

Thank you for checking out the article. I agree with the points you make regarding the campaign. I really like the "Make It Better Project"… This was a direct response to Savage's work:

Part of the reason I wanted to fold in the racial and global context is because for many people, there are racial, economic, and territorial barriers that prevent life from "getting better," war is one of them, and so is white supremacy.

Thank you again for reading and commenting.

Martyn

February 28, 2012 at 3:00 am

I think these are great points. I'd like to add a thought about the It Gets Better Campaign. I think its fine, but it needs another dimension (in addition to the important one the author brings up).
Not only will it hopefully get better, but also, its not fair. You shouldn't put up with it. AND we are holding society accountable and demanding change.
I think this is an important dimension, instead of just asking young people to be patient and wait it out. That doesn't really work because a) young people aren't patient and b) its not right that the burden should be on them to wait out what should be some of the most exciting years of their lives. the burden should be on everyone to create a more peaceful and nurturing world.

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

Hi Martyn,

Thank you for checking out the article. I agree with the points you make regarding the campaign. I really like the "Make It Better Project"… This was a direct response to Savage's work:

Part of the reason I wanted to fold in the racial and global context is because for many people, there are racial, economic, and territorial barriers that prevent life from "getting better," war is one of them, and so is white supremacy.

Thank you again for reading and commenting.

Martyn

February 28, 2012 at 3:00 am

I think these are great points. I'd like to add a thought about the It Gets Better Campaign. I think its fine, but it needs another dimension (in addition to the important one the author brings up).
Not only will it hopefully get better, but also, its not fair. You shouldn't put up with it. AND we are holding society accountable and demanding change.
I think this is an important dimension, instead of just asking young people to be patient and wait it out. That doesn't really work because a) young people aren't patient and b) its not right that the burden should be on them to wait out what should be some of the most exciting years of their lives. the burden should be on everyone to create a more peaceful and nurturing world.

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

Hi Martyn,

Thank you for checking out the article. I agree with the points you make regarding the campaign. I really like the "Make It Better Project"… This was a direct response to Savage's work:

Part of the reason I wanted to fold in the racial and global context is because for many people, there are racial, economic, and territorial barriers that prevent life from "getting better," war is one of them, and so is white supremacy.

Thank you again for reading and commenting.

Martyn

February 28, 2012 at 3:00 am

I think these are great points. I'd like to add a thought about the It Gets Better Campaign. I think its fine, but it needs another dimension (in addition to the important one the author brings up).
Not only will it hopefully get better, but also, its not fair. You shouldn't put up with it. AND we are holding society accountable and demanding change.
I think this is an important dimension, instead of just asking young people to be patient and wait it out. That doesn't really work because a) young people aren't patient and b) its not right that the burden should be on them to wait out what should be some of the most exciting years of their lives. the burden should be on everyone to create a more peaceful and nurturing world.

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

Hi Martyn,

Thank you for checking out the article. I agree with the points you make regarding the campaign. I really like the "Make It Better Project"… This was a direct response to Savage's work:

Part of the reason I wanted to fold in the racial and global context is because for many people, there are racial, economic, and territorial barriers that prevent life from "getting better," war is one of them, and so is white supremacy.

Thank you again for reading and commenting.

Robb

February 28, 2012 at 6:32 am

I read this and thought "Oh god, another blogger trapped in the language of the academy." I wish writers of itty-bitty criticisms like this would be a little more forgiving and realize that the micro-nuances of racial insensitivity that Savage (and probably any white person) have perpetrated are both natural given that we see the world through the bodies we inhabit, and miniscule in the big scheme of things.

Savage saw a real problem, took steps to address it using the forum open to him, it broke into the public consciousness, and now he gets criticized because the people who report on it don't focus on people of color enough? C'mon.

Savage has said many controversial things before and is certainly no saint, but I don't think his every utterance affects the impact of IGB to a struggling kid looking for proof that he's not alone. Savage isn't claiming that IGB is enough on its own, nor is he saying "let's create a bandwagon of platitudes!" To imply otherwise is to make a straw man argument.

Everyone says stupid shit now and then, but I don't think it's racist to acknowledge that homophobia exists in the African American community (as it does in every community) or to point out that conservatives used Prop 8 as a way to get African American votes that they couldn't get otherwise. The support of the Iraq war? Crazy "drunk uncle" talk, but again not linked w/ IGB. To use web posts that he quickly removed (presumably because even he saw they were inappropriate) as evidence of implicit racism is disingenous and shady.

Were those things stupid of him to say? Yes. Indicative of an tendency to see issues only from his own perspective? Sure. But "implicitly racist"? No. There's enough explicit racism out there and more villianous targets for you to call out– there's no need to highlight an ally for minor failings when there are enemies with huge failings who are doing much more damage. Please don't nitpick using the vocabulary of the stereotypical liberal academic who calls out others for stating their views and cries "I found a moral failing!"

From one gay white male to another gay white male who decided to call out a third gay white male, I say "First world problems, indeed."

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Thank you for checking out the article and your response, Robb.

I appreciate what you are articulating, however, the reason I chose those two statements he made (which generally were repeated and expressed in many other contexts, and on other platforms) is because they highlight a frame of mind Savage utilizes.

It Gets Better (IGB) conceptualizes violence within a very narrow framework, and while he is going into high schools across the country and starting a conversation (which I state I applaud him for), I cannot wholeheartedly support a campaign that prioritizes certain identities over another. To support young gay and lesbians while ignoring transgender and gender non conforming peoples is an injustice. Also, to fight for U.S normative sexuality while supporting the U.S war machine and empire, is also in just. Even if Savage was fighting for Queer liberation (for all people) in the U.S, that progress would be hindered by the global context. So it is not just a "first world problem," it is a global problem.

Lauren Wheeler

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I believe only a white person would refer to the outright racism that Dan Savage has indulged in as "miniscule in the big scheme of things." Being a black queer woman in the Bay Area following the passage of Prop 8, I will let you know that he encouraged a helluva lot of racist hostility towards people of color, including queers.

Robb

February 28, 2012 at 6:32 am

I read this and thought "Oh god, another blogger trapped in the language of the academy." I wish writers of itty-bitty criticisms like this would be a little more forgiving and realize that the micro-nuances of racial insensitivity that Savage (and probably any white person) have perpetrated are both natural given that we see the world through the bodies we inhabit, and miniscule in the big scheme of things.

Savage saw a real problem, took steps to address it using the forum open to him, it broke into the public consciousness, and now he gets criticized because the people who report on it don't focus on people of color enough? C'mon.

Savage has said many controversial things before and is certainly no saint, but I don't think his every utterance affects the impact of IGB to a struggling kid looking for proof that he's not alone. Savage isn't claiming that IGB is enough on its own, nor is he saying "let's create a bandwagon of platitudes!" To imply otherwise is to make a straw man argument.

Everyone says stupid shit now and then, but I don't think it's racist to acknowledge that homophobia exists in the African American community (as it does in every community) or to point out that conservatives used Prop 8 as a way to get African American votes that they couldn't get otherwise. The support of the Iraq war? Crazy "drunk uncle" talk, but again not linked w/ IGB. To use web posts that he quickly removed (presumably because even he saw they were inappropriate) as evidence of implicit racism is disingenous and shady.

Were those things stupid of him to say? Yes. Indicative of an tendency to see issues only from his own perspective? Sure. But "implicitly racist"? No. There's enough explicit racism out there and more villianous targets for you to call out– there's no need to highlight an ally for minor failings when there are enemies with huge failings who are doing much more damage. Please don't nitpick using the vocabulary of the stereotypical liberal academic who calls out others for stating their views and cries "I found a moral failing!"

From one gay white male to another gay white male who decided to call out a third gay white male, I say "First world problems, indeed."

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Thank you for checking out the article and your response, Robb.

I appreciate what you are articulating, however, the reason I chose those two statements he made (which generally were repeated and expressed in many other contexts, and on other platforms) is because they highlight a frame of mind Savage utilizes.

It Gets Better (IGB) conceptualizes violence within a very narrow framework, and while he is going into high schools across the country and starting a conversation (which I state I applaud him for), I cannot wholeheartedly support a campaign that prioritizes certain identities over another. To support young gay and lesbians while ignoring transgender and gender non conforming peoples is an injustice. Also, to fight for U.S normative sexuality while supporting the U.S war machine and empire, is also in just. Even if Savage was fighting for Queer liberation (for all people) in the U.S, that progress would be hindered by the global context. So it is not just a "first world problem," it is a global problem.

Lauren Wheeler

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I believe only a white person would refer to the outright racism that Dan Savage has indulged in as "miniscule in the big scheme of things." Being a black queer woman in the Bay Area following the passage of Prop 8, I will let you know that he encouraged a helluva lot of racist hostility towards people of color, including queers.

Robb

February 28, 2012 at 6:32 am

I read this and thought "Oh god, another blogger trapped in the language of the academy." I wish writers of itty-bitty criticisms like this would be a little more forgiving and realize that the micro-nuances of racial insensitivity that Savage (and probably any white person) have perpetrated are both natural given that we see the world through the bodies we inhabit, and miniscule in the big scheme of things.

Savage saw a real problem, took steps to address it using the forum open to him, it broke into the public consciousness, and now he gets criticized because the people who report on it don't focus on people of color enough? C'mon.

Savage has said many controversial things before and is certainly no saint, but I don't think his every utterance affects the impact of IGB to a struggling kid looking for proof that he's not alone. Savage isn't claiming that IGB is enough on its own, nor is he saying "let's create a bandwagon of platitudes!" To imply otherwise is to make a straw man argument.

Everyone says stupid shit now and then, but I don't think it's racist to acknowledge that homophobia exists in the African American community (as it does in every community) or to point out that conservatives used Prop 8 as a way to get African American votes that they couldn't get otherwise. The support of the Iraq war? Crazy "drunk uncle" talk, but again not linked w/ IGB. To use web posts that he quickly removed (presumably because even he saw they were inappropriate) as evidence of implicit racism is disingenous and shady.

Were those things stupid of him to say? Yes. Indicative of an tendency to see issues only from his own perspective? Sure. But "implicitly racist"? No. There's enough explicit racism out there and more villianous targets for you to call out– there's no need to highlight an ally for minor failings when there are enemies with huge failings who are doing much more damage. Please don't nitpick using the vocabulary of the stereotypical liberal academic who calls out others for stating their views and cries "I found a moral failing!"

From one gay white male to another gay white male who decided to call out a third gay white male, I say "First world problems, indeed."

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Thank you for checking out the article and your response, Robb.

I appreciate what you are articulating, however, the reason I chose those two statements he made (which generally were repeated and expressed in many other contexts, and on other platforms) is because they highlight a frame of mind Savage utilizes.

It Gets Better (IGB) conceptualizes violence within a very narrow framework, and while he is going into high schools across the country and starting a conversation (which I state I applaud him for), I cannot wholeheartedly support a campaign that prioritizes certain identities over another. To support young gay and lesbians while ignoring transgender and gender non conforming peoples is an injustice. Also, to fight for U.S normative sexuality while supporting the U.S war machine and empire, is also in just. Even if Savage was fighting for Queer liberation (for all people) in the U.S, that progress would be hindered by the global context. So it is not just a "first world problem," it is a global problem.

Lauren Wheeler

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I believe only a white person would refer to the outright racism that Dan Savage has indulged in as "miniscule in the big scheme of things." Being a black queer woman in the Bay Area following the passage of Prop 8, I will let you know that he encouraged a helluva lot of racist hostility towards people of color, including queers.

Robb

February 28, 2012 at 6:32 am

I read this and thought "Oh god, another blogger trapped in the language of the academy." I wish writers of itty-bitty criticisms like this would be a little more forgiving and realize that the micro-nuances of racial insensitivity that Savage (and probably any white person) have perpetrated are both natural given that we see the world through the bodies we inhabit, and miniscule in the big scheme of things.

Savage saw a real problem, took steps to address it using the forum open to him, it broke into the public consciousness, and now he gets criticized because the people who report on it don't focus on people of color enough? C'mon.

Savage has said many controversial things before and is certainly no saint, but I don't think his every utterance affects the impact of IGB to a struggling kid looking for proof that he's not alone. Savage isn't claiming that IGB is enough on its own, nor is he saying "let's create a bandwagon of platitudes!" To imply otherwise is to make a straw man argument.

Everyone says stupid shit now and then, but I don't think it's racist to acknowledge that homophobia exists in the African American community (as it does in every community) or to point out that conservatives used Prop 8 as a way to get African American votes that they couldn't get otherwise. The support of the Iraq war? Crazy "drunk uncle" talk, but again not linked w/ IGB. To use web posts that he quickly removed (presumably because even he saw they were inappropriate) as evidence of implicit racism is disingenous and shady.

Were those things stupid of him to say? Yes. Indicative of an tendency to see issues only from his own perspective? Sure. But "implicitly racist"? No. There's enough explicit racism out there and more villianous targets for you to call out– there's no need to highlight an ally for minor failings when there are enemies with huge failings who are doing much more damage. Please don't nitpick using the vocabulary of the stereotypical liberal academic who calls out others for stating their views and cries "I found a moral failing!"

From one gay white male to another gay white male who decided to call out a third gay white male, I say "First world problems, indeed."

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Thank you for checking out the article and your response, Robb.

I appreciate what you are articulating, however, the reason I chose those two statements he made (which generally were repeated and expressed in many other contexts, and on other platforms) is because they highlight a frame of mind Savage utilizes.

It Gets Better (IGB) conceptualizes violence within a very narrow framework, and while he is going into high schools across the country and starting a conversation (which I state I applaud him for), I cannot wholeheartedly support a campaign that prioritizes certain identities over another. To support young gay and lesbians while ignoring transgender and gender non conforming peoples is an injustice. Also, to fight for U.S normative sexuality while supporting the U.S war machine and empire, is also in just. Even if Savage was fighting for Queer liberation (for all people) in the U.S, that progress would be hindered by the global context. So it is not just a "first world problem," it is a global problem.

Lauren Wheeler

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I believe only a white person would refer to the outright racism that Dan Savage has indulged in as "miniscule in the big scheme of things." Being a black queer woman in the Bay Area following the passage of Prop 8, I will let you know that he encouraged a helluva lot of racist hostility towards people of color, including queers.

Mo

February 28, 2012 at 7:27 am

This was an excellent article. I can't believe Savage said that about the Iraq war. Homonationalism at its worst. He really has earned his last name. Sharing this widely.

Mo

February 28, 2012 at 7:27 am

This was an excellent article. I can't believe Savage said that about the Iraq war. Homonationalism at its worst. He really has earned his last name. Sharing this widely.

Mo

February 28, 2012 at 7:27 am

This was an excellent article. I can't believe Savage said that about the Iraq war. Homonationalism at its worst. He really has earned his last name. Sharing this widely.

Mo

February 28, 2012 at 7:27 am

This was an excellent article. I can't believe Savage said that about the Iraq war. Homonationalism at its worst. He really has earned his last name. Sharing this widely.

Dan Savage makes me tired … the way Michelangelo Signorile used to make me tired (thankfully, I've managed to disappear him completely from the WendoVerse), the way Andrew Sullivan makes me (very) tired, and the way most of an entire gene…ration of gay "leaders" made me tired throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Tired of a lack of broad vision, tired of their total incapacity to form coalitions with other progressives (unless it's on "gay" issues — and, in those cases, they've gotta come to "us"), tired of never having more than a sliver of my concerns reflected anywhere, ever in what my so-called-community leaders have identified as the important issues. I know: an activist only has a certain amount of time and energy and cannot save the entire world, so it makes sense to focus energy on a limited number of issues, but why does that focus among white gay men so often mean replicating the same set of cultural conditions: exclusion/entitlement, ageism, sexism, racism, and classism. A guy could start to get the idea that it was intentional or something…. But I have to admit that Kirk Grisham doesn’t irritate me a whole lot less. He’s got nothing new to say (activists in ACT-UP and Queer Nation were fighting these same battles more than two decades ago, as were some of us nearly 40 years ago in the very early gay-rights movement, when the big issue was “how come no lesbians want to join us?”), and he proposes no solutions other than ritual collective hand-wringing. A sentence like “This framework defines the rights and liberties of people of color as diametrically opposed to the further entitlement of white gay men. We, white/queer/male folk, who are the beneficiaries of privileging discourses and practices like the ones Savage employs, must speak out and act up,” is not only a cooptation of the history of grassroots movements he isn’t even old enough to remember (and lower-casing act-up is a little like lowercasing holocaust), it’s what comes of reading too much queer theory and having way too little queer experience. Savage DID something, and that’s the crux of the matter. Does that “something” reflect his subjectivities and biases as a privileged white boy? You bet it does. Do merit and talent explain why Savage’s voice and (often silly) opinions enjoy air and print time while so many others don’t? They most certainly do not. But if Savage and Grisham are, as Grisham argues, members of the same group and benefit from the same “privileging discourses and practices,” then let’s see Grisham get a project off the ground that embodies the values he says set him so far apart from Savage. We could certainly use it. In the meantime, I propose he put his writing on a whine-free diet; he’d be much the better for it. Savage’s views on Iraq and the need to stop “Islamo-Fascism” (while also putting an end to bullying) are identical to those of the black (actually, mixed-race) President whom Grisham presumably supports. So what does that prove, exactly, about Savage (or Obama) other than that they hold positions that aren’t coherent? Is Grisham really implying that Tyler Clementi’s race, because he was white, makes his case *less* tragic? In fact, while Grisham was at it, instead of seizing the opportunity to publish his writing in Feminist Wire, why didn’t he give a “non-white and non-bourgeois” writer the exposure instead? The point is: There’s no such thing as not having a subjectivity. What I read in Grisham that disturbs me is the not-so-subtle implication that it’s possible (and even desirable) to live and work without one. I’m not sure being white, male, and privileged are what make Dan Savage talk out of his asshole so often. Even if they do, they still aren’t conditions he can change. And that’s why I’d much rather hear a nice, resounding “Dan Savage is full of shit” than a lot of mealy-mouth post-post critical analysis of his social status.

Jesus Suarez

February 28, 2012 at 10:28 am

HEAR HERE!!! You are BRILLIANT!! From one minority memeber gay activist to another you are absolutely CORRECT!!!

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

Thanks for reading the article and responding. Have you see the Make It Better Project? I would suggest checking that out.

There is also a lot of work being down here in New York, namely by organizations like Queers for Economic Justice, Audre Lorde Project, Silva Rivera Law Project, Hendrick Martin Institute (and Sakia Gunn High School for Civic Engagement).

What is important is that we challenge the process wherein our subjectivity dominates our work and world views, the activists and advocates I respect challenge themselves, and work through that tension around their privilege, as able bodied, because of their race or serostatus, or gender. The critique here is that Savage does not do that, and it is something we must think about in our own work.

Alex Cherry

February 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Awfully easy to whine and cry about how Savage isn't perfect. Of course he's not. He's human and flawed like the rest of us.

Pointedly, IGB has nothing to do with Savage's other views. It just has to do with the fact that he saw kids hurting and wanted to tell them it gets better.

I applaud the OP for doing work with the Make It Better project. I'm sure that being in the very specific position that you are, you're able to contribute there, and I'm thankful that you do.

However, not all of us are professional educators. I work in telecom. IGB beats you on one simple level – it lets me participate. I get to make a difference.

Savage understands something that you apparently do not. While you sit here and imply (or outright say) that Savage is an elitist, you suggest I check out an organization that I can't get involved with. I mean, I could write a check to MIB, but since they don't have any kind of clear mission plan, I'm hesitant to do so. Savage on the other hand, created something that I could *do* that directly helped.

Now who's excluding?

I find the original article to be trite, whiny, and just as racist as it claims Dan Savage is.

I believe the impolite word for the author is as*clown.

Jake

February 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Alex, your post highlights one of the central problems I see with the It Gets Better campaign, and with how many people in the United States, at least, understand community service in general.

This movement is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is absolutely wonderful that you want to help, and want to make a difference in the lives of struggling LGBTQ youth, but your goal should be to find the way in which you can be best and most effective FOR THE CHILDREN you want to help.

I can accept that it would be difficult for you to participate in the Make It Better campaign, and that is perfectly fine. If you don't want to donate money to them, I can most certainly accept that too.

What I find troubling with how both you and Dan Savage appear to understand activism is that by just sitting in your room and making a video, you think you are making a significant difference. One of the problems with that way of thinking is that (at least as far as I can tell) your form of activism is to make a video and do absolutely nothing else.

This ideology is supported by the very concept of the It Gets Better Campaign. These videos tell children that their lives will get better eventually, and that if they tough it out, eventually they will grow up, move out of wherever they are living now, go to a better place and live a happy life. For many children this is quite simply not true. Many children, who are bullied for a variety of reasons not only their true or perceived sexuality, will NOT be able to move away from home. Many will struggle and will unfortunately have lives filled with suffering. Simply telling these children that "It Gets Better" normalizes this experience and tells them that they just have to get through it, rather than working to make their lives and their communities better NOW.

Making a video for It Gets Better does little to alleviate the suffering of gay teens NOW. At most, it will help depressed and angry children hang on to life in they are living in the hopes that it gets better. As they live in hope, however, their lives will be little better because of these videos.

If Make It Better is not something you can get involved in, find something that you can. Go volunteer at a local LGBT youth center in the evenings, or at a youth homeless shelter. If you would prefer to give money, find an organization you support that is working towards an issue you support. Find your own way to "Make It Better," for LGBT youth, besides just telling them to hold on and wait it out until some day things get better in the indeterminate future.

Dan Savage makes me tired … the way Michelangelo Signorile used to make me tired (thankfully, I've managed to disappear him completely from the WendoVerse), the way Andrew Sullivan makes me (very) tired, and the way most of an entire gene…ration of gay "leaders" made me tired throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Tired of a lack of broad vision, tired of their total incapacity to form coalitions with other progressives (unless it's on "gay" issues — and, in those cases, they've gotta come to "us"), tired of never having more than a sliver of my concerns reflected anywhere, ever in what my so-called-community leaders have identified as the important issues. I know: an activist only has a certain amount of time and energy and cannot save the entire world, so it makes sense to focus energy on a limited number of issues, but why does that focus among white gay men so often mean replicating the same set of cultural conditions: exclusion/entitlement, ageism, sexism, racism, and classism. A guy could start to get the idea that it was intentional or something…. But I have to admit that Kirk Grisham doesn’t irritate me a whole lot less. He’s got nothing new to say (activists in ACT-UP and Queer Nation were fighting these same battles more than two decades ago, as were some of us nearly 40 years ago in the very early gay-rights movement, when the big issue was “how come no lesbians want to join us?”), and he proposes no solutions other than ritual collective hand-wringing. A sentence like “This framework defines the rights and liberties of people of color as diametrically opposed to the further entitlement of white gay men. We, white/queer/male folk, who are the beneficiaries of privileging discourses and practices like the ones Savage employs, must speak out and act up,” is not only a cooptation of the history of grassroots movements he isn’t even old enough to remember (and lower-casing act-up is a little like lowercasing holocaust), it’s what comes of reading too much queer theory and having way too little queer experience. Savage DID something, and that’s the crux of the matter. Does that “something” reflect his subjectivities and biases as a privileged white boy? You bet it does. Do merit and talent explain why Savage’s voice and (often silly) opinions enjoy air and print time while so many others don’t? They most certainly do not. But if Savage and Grisham are, as Grisham argues, members of the same group and benefit from the same “privileging discourses and practices,” then let’s see Grisham get a project off the ground that embodies the values he says set him so far apart from Savage. We could certainly use it. In the meantime, I propose he put his writing on a whine-free diet; he’d be much the better for it. Savage’s views on Iraq and the need to stop “Islamo-Fascism” (while also putting an end to bullying) are identical to those of the black (actually, mixed-race) President whom Grisham presumably supports. So what does that prove, exactly, about Savage (or Obama) other than that they hold positions that aren’t coherent? Is Grisham really implying that Tyler Clementi’s race, because he was white, makes his case *less* tragic? In fact, while Grisham was at it, instead of seizing the opportunity to publish his writing in Feminist Wire, why didn’t he give a “non-white and non-bourgeois” writer the exposure instead? The point is: There’s no such thing as not having a subjectivity. What I read in Grisham that disturbs me is the not-so-subtle implication that it’s possible (and even desirable) to live and work without one. I’m not sure being white, male, and privileged are what make Dan Savage talk out of his asshole so often. Even if they do, they still aren’t conditions he can change. And that’s why I’d much rather hear a nice, resounding “Dan Savage is full of shit” than a lot of mealy-mouth post-post critical analysis of his social status.

Jesus Suarez

February 28, 2012 at 10:28 am

HEAR HERE!!! You are BRILLIANT!! From one minority memeber gay activist to another you are absolutely CORRECT!!!

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

Thanks for reading the article and responding. Have you see the Make It Better Project? I would suggest checking that out.

There is also a lot of work being down here in New York, namely by organizations like Queers for Economic Justice, Audre Lorde Project, Silva Rivera Law Project, Hendrick Martin Institute (and Sakia Gunn High School for Civic Engagement).

What is important is that we challenge the process wherein our subjectivity dominates our work and world views, the activists and advocates I respect challenge themselves, and work through that tension around their privilege, as able bodied, because of their race or serostatus, or gender. The critique here is that Savage does not do that, and it is something we must think about in our own work.

Alex Cherry

February 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Awfully easy to whine and cry about how Savage isn't perfect. Of course he's not. He's human and flawed like the rest of us.

Pointedly, IGB has nothing to do with Savage's other views. It just has to do with the fact that he saw kids hurting and wanted to tell them it gets better.

I applaud the OP for doing work with the Make It Better project. I'm sure that being in the very specific position that you are, you're able to contribute there, and I'm thankful that you do.

However, not all of us are professional educators. I work in telecom. IGB beats you on one simple level – it lets me participate. I get to make a difference.

Savage understands something that you apparently do not. While you sit here and imply (or outright say) that Savage is an elitist, you suggest I check out an organization that I can't get involved with. I mean, I could write a check to MIB, but since they don't have any kind of clear mission plan, I'm hesitant to do so. Savage on the other hand, created something that I could *do* that directly helped.

Now who's excluding?

I find the original article to be trite, whiny, and just as racist as it claims Dan Savage is.

I believe the impolite word for the author is as*clown.

Jake

February 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Alex, your post highlights one of the central problems I see with the It Gets Better campaign, and with how many people in the United States, at least, understand community service in general.

This movement is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is absolutely wonderful that you want to help, and want to make a difference in the lives of struggling LGBTQ youth, but your goal should be to find the way in which you can be best and most effective FOR THE CHILDREN you want to help.

I can accept that it would be difficult for you to participate in the Make It Better campaign, and that is perfectly fine. If you don't want to donate money to them, I can most certainly accept that too.

What I find troubling with how both you and Dan Savage appear to understand activism is that by just sitting in your room and making a video, you think you are making a significant difference. One of the problems with that way of thinking is that (at least as far as I can tell) your form of activism is to make a video and do absolutely nothing else.

This ideology is supported by the very concept of the It Gets Better Campaign. These videos tell children that their lives will get better eventually, and that if they tough it out, eventually they will grow up, move out of wherever they are living now, go to a better place and live a happy life. For many children this is quite simply not true. Many children, who are bullied for a variety of reasons not only their true or perceived sexuality, will NOT be able to move away from home. Many will struggle and will unfortunately have lives filled with suffering. Simply telling these children that "It Gets Better" normalizes this experience and tells them that they just have to get through it, rather than working to make their lives and their communities better NOW.

Making a video for It Gets Better does little to alleviate the suffering of gay teens NOW. At most, it will help depressed and angry children hang on to life in they are living in the hopes that it gets better. As they live in hope, however, their lives will be little better because of these videos.

If Make It Better is not something you can get involved in, find something that you can. Go volunteer at a local LGBT youth center in the evenings, or at a youth homeless shelter. If you would prefer to give money, find an organization you support that is working towards an issue you support. Find your own way to "Make It Better," for LGBT youth, besides just telling them to hold on and wait it out until some day things get better in the indeterminate future.

Dan Savage makes me tired … the way Michelangelo Signorile used to make me tired (thankfully, I've managed to disappear him completely from the WendoVerse), the way Andrew Sullivan makes me (very) tired, and the way most of an entire gene…ration of gay "leaders" made me tired throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Tired of a lack of broad vision, tired of their total incapacity to form coalitions with other progressives (unless it's on "gay" issues — and, in those cases, they've gotta come to "us"), tired of never having more than a sliver of my concerns reflected anywhere, ever in what my so-called-community leaders have identified as the important issues. I know: an activist only has a certain amount of time and energy and cannot save the entire world, so it makes sense to focus energy on a limited number of issues, but why does that focus among white gay men so often mean replicating the same set of cultural conditions: exclusion/entitlement, ageism, sexism, racism, and classism. A guy could start to get the idea that it was intentional or something…. But I have to admit that Kirk Grisham doesn’t irritate me a whole lot less. He’s got nothing new to say (activists in ACT-UP and Queer Nation were fighting these same battles more than two decades ago, as were some of us nearly 40 years ago in the very early gay-rights movement, when the big issue was “how come no lesbians want to join us?”), and he proposes no solutions other than ritual collective hand-wringing. A sentence like “This framework defines the rights and liberties of people of color as diametrically opposed to the further entitlement of white gay men. We, white/queer/male folk, who are the beneficiaries of privileging discourses and practices like the ones Savage employs, must speak out and act up,” is not only a cooptation of the history of grassroots movements he isn’t even old enough to remember (and lower-casing act-up is a little like lowercasing holocaust), it’s what comes of reading too much queer theory and having way too little queer experience. Savage DID something, and that’s the crux of the matter. Does that “something” reflect his subjectivities and biases as a privileged white boy? You bet it does. Do merit and talent explain why Savage’s voice and (often silly) opinions enjoy air and print time while so many others don’t? They most certainly do not. But if Savage and Grisham are, as Grisham argues, members of the same group and benefit from the same “privileging discourses and practices,” then let’s see Grisham get a project off the ground that embodies the values he says set him so far apart from Savage. We could certainly use it. In the meantime, I propose he put his writing on a whine-free diet; he’d be much the better for it. Savage’s views on Iraq and the need to stop “Islamo-Fascism” (while also putting an end to bullying) are identical to those of the black (actually, mixed-race) President whom Grisham presumably supports. So what does that prove, exactly, about Savage (or Obama) other than that they hold positions that aren’t coherent? Is Grisham really implying that Tyler Clementi’s race, because he was white, makes his case *less* tragic? In fact, while Grisham was at it, instead of seizing the opportunity to publish his writing in Feminist Wire, why didn’t he give a “non-white and non-bourgeois” writer the exposure instead? The point is: There’s no such thing as not having a subjectivity. What I read in Grisham that disturbs me is the not-so-subtle implication that it’s possible (and even desirable) to live and work without one. I’m not sure being white, male, and privileged are what make Dan Savage talk out of his asshole so often. Even if they do, they still aren’t conditions he can change. And that’s why I’d much rather hear a nice, resounding “Dan Savage is full of shit” than a lot of mealy-mouth post-post critical analysis of his social status.

Jesus Suarez

February 28, 2012 at 10:28 am

HEAR HERE!!! You are BRILLIANT!! From one minority memeber gay activist to another you are absolutely CORRECT!!!

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

Thanks for reading the article and responding. Have you see the Make It Better Project? I would suggest checking that out.

There is also a lot of work being down here in New York, namely by organizations like Queers for Economic Justice, Audre Lorde Project, Silva Rivera Law Project, Hendrick Martin Institute (and Sakia Gunn High School for Civic Engagement).

What is important is that we challenge the process wherein our subjectivity dominates our work and world views, the activists and advocates I respect challenge themselves, and work through that tension around their privilege, as able bodied, because of their race or serostatus, or gender. The critique here is that Savage does not do that, and it is something we must think about in our own work.

Alex Cherry

February 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Awfully easy to whine and cry about how Savage isn't perfect. Of course he's not. He's human and flawed like the rest of us.

Pointedly, IGB has nothing to do with Savage's other views. It just has to do with the fact that he saw kids hurting and wanted to tell them it gets better.

I applaud the OP for doing work with the Make It Better project. I'm sure that being in the very specific position that you are, you're able to contribute there, and I'm thankful that you do.

However, not all of us are professional educators. I work in telecom. IGB beats you on one simple level – it lets me participate. I get to make a difference.

Savage understands something that you apparently do not. While you sit here and imply (or outright say) that Savage is an elitist, you suggest I check out an organization that I can't get involved with. I mean, I could write a check to MIB, but since they don't have any kind of clear mission plan, I'm hesitant to do so. Savage on the other hand, created something that I could *do* that directly helped.

Now who's excluding?

I find the original article to be trite, whiny, and just as racist as it claims Dan Savage is.

I believe the impolite word for the author is as*clown.

Jake

February 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Alex, your post highlights one of the central problems I see with the It Gets Better campaign, and with how many people in the United States, at least, understand community service in general.

This movement is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is absolutely wonderful that you want to help, and want to make a difference in the lives of struggling LGBTQ youth, but your goal should be to find the way in which you can be best and most effective FOR THE CHILDREN you want to help.

I can accept that it would be difficult for you to participate in the Make It Better campaign, and that is perfectly fine. If you don't want to donate money to them, I can most certainly accept that too.

What I find troubling with how both you and Dan Savage appear to understand activism is that by just sitting in your room and making a video, you think you are making a significant difference. One of the problems with that way of thinking is that (at least as far as I can tell) your form of activism is to make a video and do absolutely nothing else.

This ideology is supported by the very concept of the It Gets Better Campaign. These videos tell children that their lives will get better eventually, and that if they tough it out, eventually they will grow up, move out of wherever they are living now, go to a better place and live a happy life. For many children this is quite simply not true. Many children, who are bullied for a variety of reasons not only their true or perceived sexuality, will NOT be able to move away from home. Many will struggle and will unfortunately have lives filled with suffering. Simply telling these children that "It Gets Better" normalizes this experience and tells them that they just have to get through it, rather than working to make their lives and their communities better NOW.

Making a video for It Gets Better does little to alleviate the suffering of gay teens NOW. At most, it will help depressed and angry children hang on to life in they are living in the hopes that it gets better. As they live in hope, however, their lives will be little better because of these videos.

If Make It Better is not something you can get involved in, find something that you can. Go volunteer at a local LGBT youth center in the evenings, or at a youth homeless shelter. If you would prefer to give money, find an organization you support that is working towards an issue you support. Find your own way to "Make It Better," for LGBT youth, besides just telling them to hold on and wait it out until some day things get better in the indeterminate future.

Dan Savage makes me tired … the way Michelangelo Signorile used to make me tired (thankfully, I've managed to disappear him completely from the WendoVerse), the way Andrew Sullivan makes me (very) tired, and the way most of an entire gene…ration of gay "leaders" made me tired throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Tired of a lack of broad vision, tired of their total incapacity to form coalitions with other progressives (unless it's on "gay" issues — and, in those cases, they've gotta come to "us"), tired of never having more than a sliver of my concerns reflected anywhere, ever in what my so-called-community leaders have identified as the important issues. I know: an activist only has a certain amount of time and energy and cannot save the entire world, so it makes sense to focus energy on a limited number of issues, but why does that focus among white gay men so often mean replicating the same set of cultural conditions: exclusion/entitlement, ageism, sexism, racism, and classism. A guy could start to get the idea that it was intentional or something…. But I have to admit that Kirk Grisham doesn’t irritate me a whole lot less. He’s got nothing new to say (activists in ACT-UP and Queer Nation were fighting these same battles more than two decades ago, as were some of us nearly 40 years ago in the very early gay-rights movement, when the big issue was “how come no lesbians want to join us?”), and he proposes no solutions other than ritual collective hand-wringing. A sentence like “This framework defines the rights and liberties of people of color as diametrically opposed to the further entitlement of white gay men. We, white/queer/male folk, who are the beneficiaries of privileging discourses and practices like the ones Savage employs, must speak out and act up,” is not only a cooptation of the history of grassroots movements he isn’t even old enough to remember (and lower-casing act-up is a little like lowercasing holocaust), it’s what comes of reading too much queer theory and having way too little queer experience. Savage DID something, and that’s the crux of the matter. Does that “something” reflect his subjectivities and biases as a privileged white boy? You bet it does. Do merit and talent explain why Savage’s voice and (often silly) opinions enjoy air and print time while so many others don’t? They most certainly do not. But if Savage and Grisham are, as Grisham argues, members of the same group and benefit from the same “privileging discourses and practices,” then let’s see Grisham get a project off the ground that embodies the values he says set him so far apart from Savage. We could certainly use it. In the meantime, I propose he put his writing on a whine-free diet; he’d be much the better for it. Savage’s views on Iraq and the need to stop “Islamo-Fascism” (while also putting an end to bullying) are identical to those of the black (actually, mixed-race) President whom Grisham presumably supports. So what does that prove, exactly, about Savage (or Obama) other than that they hold positions that aren’t coherent? Is Grisham really implying that Tyler Clementi’s race, because he was white, makes his case *less* tragic? In fact, while Grisham was at it, instead of seizing the opportunity to publish his writing in Feminist Wire, why didn’t he give a “non-white and non-bourgeois” writer the exposure instead? The point is: There’s no such thing as not having a subjectivity. What I read in Grisham that disturbs me is the not-so-subtle implication that it’s possible (and even desirable) to live and work without one. I’m not sure being white, male, and privileged are what make Dan Savage talk out of his asshole so often. Even if they do, they still aren’t conditions he can change. And that’s why I’d much rather hear a nice, resounding “Dan Savage is full of shit” than a lot of mealy-mouth post-post critical analysis of his social status.

Jesus Suarez

February 28, 2012 at 10:28 am

HEAR HERE!!! You are BRILLIANT!! From one minority memeber gay activist to another you are absolutely CORRECT!!!

Kirk Grisham

February 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

Thanks for reading the article and responding. Have you see the Make It Better Project? I would suggest checking that out.

There is also a lot of work being down here in New York, namely by organizations like Queers for Economic Justice, Audre Lorde Project, Silva Rivera Law Project, Hendrick Martin Institute (and Sakia Gunn High School for Civic Engagement).

What is important is that we challenge the process wherein our subjectivity dominates our work and world views, the activists and advocates I respect challenge themselves, and work through that tension around their privilege, as able bodied, because of their race or serostatus, or gender. The critique here is that Savage does not do that, and it is something we must think about in our own work.

Alex Cherry

February 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Awfully easy to whine and cry about how Savage isn't perfect. Of course he's not. He's human and flawed like the rest of us.

Pointedly, IGB has nothing to do with Savage's other views. It just has to do with the fact that he saw kids hurting and wanted to tell them it gets better.

I applaud the OP for doing work with the Make It Better project. I'm sure that being in the very specific position that you are, you're able to contribute there, and I'm thankful that you do.

However, not all of us are professional educators. I work in telecom. IGB beats you on one simple level – it lets me participate. I get to make a difference.

Savage understands something that you apparently do not. While you sit here and imply (or outright say) that Savage is an elitist, you suggest I check out an organization that I can't get involved with. I mean, I could write a check to MIB, but since they don't have any kind of clear mission plan, I'm hesitant to do so. Savage on the other hand, created something that I could *do* that directly helped.

Now who's excluding?

I find the original article to be trite, whiny, and just as racist as it claims Dan Savage is.

I believe the impolite word for the author is as*clown.

Jake

February 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Alex, your post highlights one of the central problems I see with the It Gets Better campaign, and with how many people in the United States, at least, understand community service in general.

This movement is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is absolutely wonderful that you want to help, and want to make a difference in the lives of struggling LGBTQ youth, but your goal should be to find the way in which you can be best and most effective FOR THE CHILDREN you want to help.

I can accept that it would be difficult for you to participate in the Make It Better campaign, and that is perfectly fine. If you don't want to donate money to them, I can most certainly accept that too.

What I find troubling with how both you and Dan Savage appear to understand activism is that by just sitting in your room and making a video, you think you are making a significant difference. One of the problems with that way of thinking is that (at least as far as I can tell) your form of activism is to make a video and do absolutely nothing else.

This ideology is supported by the very concept of the It Gets Better Campaign. These videos tell children that their lives will get better eventually, and that if they tough it out, eventually they will grow up, move out of wherever they are living now, go to a better place and live a happy life. For many children this is quite simply not true. Many children, who are bullied for a variety of reasons not only their true or perceived sexuality, will NOT be able to move away from home. Many will struggle and will unfortunately have lives filled with suffering. Simply telling these children that "It Gets Better" normalizes this experience and tells them that they just have to get through it, rather than working to make their lives and their communities better NOW.

Making a video for It Gets Better does little to alleviate the suffering of gay teens NOW. At most, it will help depressed and angry children hang on to life in they are living in the hopes that it gets better. As they live in hope, however, their lives will be little better because of these videos.

If Make It Better is not something you can get involved in, find something that you can. Go volunteer at a local LGBT youth center in the evenings, or at a youth homeless shelter. If you would prefer to give money, find an organization you support that is working towards an issue you support. Find your own way to "Make It Better," for LGBT youth, besides just telling them to hold on and wait it out until some day things get better in the indeterminate future.

Isaac Perez Bolado

March 2, 2012 at 5:46 am

*Quietly claps at this*

Sé

February 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Thank you for your insights and words of truth. I find Savage to be a member of the Elite Gay(white) class that replicates divided and concur tactics. I love your analysis. Thxs

Sé

February 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Thank you for your insights and words of truth. I find Savage to be a member of the Elite Gay(white) class that replicates divided and concur tactics. I love your analysis. Thxs

Sé

February 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Thank you for your insights and words of truth. I find Savage to be a member of the Elite Gay(white) class that replicates divided and concur tactics. I love your analysis. Thxs

Sé

February 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Thank you for your insights and words of truth. I find Savage to be a member of the Elite Gay(white) class that replicates divided and concur tactics. I love your analysis. Thxs

Interesting read, and I think you make a lot of very good points, but I totally lost you in your closing argument when you call Iraq under Saddam a "relatively democratic and liberal state." Relative to what? If you're going to make that statement, please give me some evidence for it, because the overwhelming amount of evidence I've seen points to pre-war Iraq as, yes, more stable, with higher standards of living for the population (who weren't Kurdish, or opposed to Saddam/the Ba'ath Party), but in no way democratic or 'liberal,' whatever you mean by that. This isn't to take away from your larger point about It Gets Better, but simply a heads up that hey – I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea as well – and Savage's contextualizing Iraq in a "Islamo-facist" trend is inaccurate, misleading, and prejudiced – but it's important not to paint Saddam's Iraq any prettier than it was. Sorry for the rant, and I hope this is somewhat educational!

"At best, he affirms that his freedom as a White gay American is more important than that of a free Iraqi or Saudi, Afghani for that matter."

If you want, read the below stuff and let me know if you think many Iraqis truly felt free.

Thank you for checking out the article and responding. I agree with you that my language was not the most appropriate. As another reader pointed out "democratic" was not the right word, it should be "secular"… I had no intention as painting Saddam as some sort of liberal free nation leader. I am very wary of Wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy, the CIA is one of the most prolific editors on there. Are you familiar with Tariq Ali's work? I think some of my hyperbole was encouraged by his accounts and analysis of pre/post US invasion Iraq.

Adam

February 29, 2012 at 6:02 am

Dan: I think that any Iraqi you ask will tell you that the rights of women and those of both ethnic and religious minorities were better protected before the US invaded. This includes their democratic rights. Iraqis (and others) hated Saddam Hussein for the terrible things that he did, but the US has made it infinitely worse. (You should check out ZNet for Iraqi voices describing their own country, and how some US criticism of Iraq is like the pot calling the kettle black.)

That's why I don't think it's convincing to point to a narrow window of time described in Wikipedia. Iraqis, especially women, had some major successes in improving their country.

Interesting read, and I think you make a lot of very good points, but I totally lost you in your closing argument when you call Iraq under Saddam a "relatively democratic and liberal state." Relative to what? If you're going to make that statement, please give me some evidence for it, because the overwhelming amount of evidence I've seen points to pre-war Iraq as, yes, more stable, with higher standards of living for the population (who weren't Kurdish, or opposed to Saddam/the Ba'ath Party), but in no way democratic or 'liberal,' whatever you mean by that. This isn't to take away from your larger point about It Gets Better, but simply a heads up that hey – I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea as well – and Savage's contextualizing Iraq in a "Islamo-facist" trend is inaccurate, misleading, and prejudiced – but it's important not to paint Saddam's Iraq any prettier than it was. Sorry for the rant, and I hope this is somewhat educational!

"At best, he affirms that his freedom as a White gay American is more important than that of a free Iraqi or Saudi, Afghani for that matter."

If you want, read the below stuff and let me know if you think many Iraqis truly felt free.

Thank you for checking out the article and responding. I agree with you that my language was not the most appropriate. As another reader pointed out "democratic" was not the right word, it should be "secular"… I had no intention as painting Saddam as some sort of liberal free nation leader. I am very wary of Wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy, the CIA is one of the most prolific editors on there. Are you familiar with Tariq Ali's work? I think some of my hyperbole was encouraged by his accounts and analysis of pre/post US invasion Iraq.

Adam

February 29, 2012 at 6:02 am

Dan: I think that any Iraqi you ask will tell you that the rights of women and those of both ethnic and religious minorities were better protected before the US invaded. This includes their democratic rights. Iraqis (and others) hated Saddam Hussein for the terrible things that he did, but the US has made it infinitely worse. (You should check out ZNet for Iraqi voices describing their own country, and how some US criticism of Iraq is like the pot calling the kettle black.)

That's why I don't think it's convincing to point to a narrow window of time described in Wikipedia. Iraqis, especially women, had some major successes in improving their country.

Interesting read, and I think you make a lot of very good points, but I totally lost you in your closing argument when you call Iraq under Saddam a "relatively democratic and liberal state." Relative to what? If you're going to make that statement, please give me some evidence for it, because the overwhelming amount of evidence I've seen points to pre-war Iraq as, yes, more stable, with higher standards of living for the population (who weren't Kurdish, or opposed to Saddam/the Ba'ath Party), but in no way democratic or 'liberal,' whatever you mean by that. This isn't to take away from your larger point about It Gets Better, but simply a heads up that hey – I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea as well – and Savage's contextualizing Iraq in a "Islamo-facist" trend is inaccurate, misleading, and prejudiced – but it's important not to paint Saddam's Iraq any prettier than it was. Sorry for the rant, and I hope this is somewhat educational!

"At best, he affirms that his freedom as a White gay American is more important than that of a free Iraqi or Saudi, Afghani for that matter."

If you want, read the below stuff and let me know if you think many Iraqis truly felt free.

Thank you for checking out the article and responding. I agree with you that my language was not the most appropriate. As another reader pointed out "democratic" was not the right word, it should be "secular"… I had no intention as painting Saddam as some sort of liberal free nation leader. I am very wary of Wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy, the CIA is one of the most prolific editors on there. Are you familiar with Tariq Ali's work? I think some of my hyperbole was encouraged by his accounts and analysis of pre/post US invasion Iraq.

Adam

February 29, 2012 at 6:02 am

Dan: I think that any Iraqi you ask will tell you that the rights of women and those of both ethnic and religious minorities were better protected before the US invaded. This includes their democratic rights. Iraqis (and others) hated Saddam Hussein for the terrible things that he did, but the US has made it infinitely worse. (You should check out ZNet for Iraqi voices describing their own country, and how some US criticism of Iraq is like the pot calling the kettle black.)

That's why I don't think it's convincing to point to a narrow window of time described in Wikipedia. Iraqis, especially women, had some major successes in improving their country.

Interesting read, and I think you make a lot of very good points, but I totally lost you in your closing argument when you call Iraq under Saddam a "relatively democratic and liberal state." Relative to what? If you're going to make that statement, please give me some evidence for it, because the overwhelming amount of evidence I've seen points to pre-war Iraq as, yes, more stable, with higher standards of living for the population (who weren't Kurdish, or opposed to Saddam/the Ba'ath Party), but in no way democratic or 'liberal,' whatever you mean by that. This isn't to take away from your larger point about It Gets Better, but simply a heads up that hey – I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea as well – and Savage's contextualizing Iraq in a "Islamo-facist" trend is inaccurate, misleading, and prejudiced – but it's important not to paint Saddam's Iraq any prettier than it was. Sorry for the rant, and I hope this is somewhat educational!

"At best, he affirms that his freedom as a White gay American is more important than that of a free Iraqi or Saudi, Afghani for that matter."

If you want, read the below stuff and let me know if you think many Iraqis truly felt free.

Thank you for checking out the article and responding. I agree with you that my language was not the most appropriate. As another reader pointed out "democratic" was not the right word, it should be "secular"… I had no intention as painting Saddam as some sort of liberal free nation leader. I am very wary of Wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy, the CIA is one of the most prolific editors on there. Are you familiar with Tariq Ali's work? I think some of my hyperbole was encouraged by his accounts and analysis of pre/post US invasion Iraq.

Adam

February 29, 2012 at 6:02 am

Dan: I think that any Iraqi you ask will tell you that the rights of women and those of both ethnic and religious minorities were better protected before the US invaded. This includes their democratic rights. Iraqis (and others) hated Saddam Hussein for the terrible things that he did, but the US has made it infinitely worse. (You should check out ZNet for Iraqi voices describing their own country, and how some US criticism of Iraq is like the pot calling the kettle black.)

That's why I don't think it's convincing to point to a narrow window of time described in Wikipedia. Iraqis, especially women, had some major successes in improving their country.

Kirk: Thanks for this eye-opener. Savage deserves his name.

cmm

February 28, 2012 at 8:55 am

This was awesome. Thanks for putting it out there.

cmm

February 28, 2012 at 8:55 am

This was awesome. Thanks for putting it out there.

cmm

February 28, 2012 at 8:55 am

This was awesome. Thanks for putting it out there.

cmm

February 28, 2012 at 8:55 am

This was awesome. Thanks for putting it out there.

gay4realness

February 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

This was an interesting read but should have been better researched. First, to try and discredit the efforts of "It Get's Better" because it may or may not have overly focused on the deaths of white gay people is accurate? Where is the research on that statement? Anyone of any color is welcome to shoot a video for the It Gets Better campaign and submit it. If Kirk is assessing that

"popularity of the campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies."

As far as I've seen the tragic stories of people of all races are included as the reasons for starting the campaign. And who is submitting video messages-if there are a lack of hispanic, black and asian featured videos of encouragement then those gay communities should get to work on shooting some and submitting them.

gay4realness

February 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

This was an interesting read but should have been better researched. First, to try and discredit the efforts of "It Get's Better" because it may or may not have overly focused on the deaths of white gay people is accurate? Where is the research on that statement? Anyone of any color is welcome to shoot a video for the It Gets Better campaign and submit it. If Kirk is assessing that

"popularity of the campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies."

As far as I've seen the tragic stories of people of all races are included as the reasons for starting the campaign. And who is submitting video messages-if there are a lack of hispanic, black and asian featured videos of encouragement then those gay communities should get to work on shooting some and submitting them.

gay4realness

February 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

This was an interesting read but should have been better researched. First, to try and discredit the efforts of "It Get's Better" because it may or may not have overly focused on the deaths of white gay people is accurate? Where is the research on that statement? Anyone of any color is welcome to shoot a video for the It Gets Better campaign and submit it. If Kirk is assessing that

"popularity of the campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies."

As far as I've seen the tragic stories of people of all races are included as the reasons for starting the campaign. And who is submitting video messages-if there are a lack of hispanic, black and asian featured videos of encouragement then those gay communities should get to work on shooting some and submitting them.

gay4realness

February 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

This was an interesting read but should have been better researched. First, to try and discredit the efforts of "It Get's Better" because it may or may not have overly focused on the deaths of white gay people is accurate? Where is the research on that statement? Anyone of any color is welcome to shoot a video for the It Gets Better campaign and submit it. If Kirk is assessing that

"popularity of the campaign and its legitimacy depend on the very subtle exclusion of non-white and non-bourgeois bodies."

As far as I've seen the tragic stories of people of all races are included as the reasons for starting the campaign. And who is submitting video messages-if there are a lack of hispanic, black and asian featured videos of encouragement then those gay communities should get to work on shooting some and submitting them.

Dave

February 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Grisham wrote: "Indeed, when we think of victims of homophobia-induced violence, many US citizens can easily recall the names of white gay males Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard but not Sakia Gunn, a black working class lesbian or Brandon White, a black gay youth. Why is that?"

And also: " A stance against anti-gay violence is unacceptable if it only imagines the White gay subject as its focus."

Ignoring the presumptuous statement about "many US citizens," it appears that the writer is demonstrating his own biases and selective memory. How can he fail to recall and note the significance of the suicide of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover?

As for the second quote: What! The writer is the only one making such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegation.

Once again we see that "no good deed goes unpunished," or, in this case, uncriticized.

Dave

February 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Grisham wrote: "Indeed, when we think of victims of homophobia-induced violence, many US citizens can easily recall the names of white gay males Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard but not Sakia Gunn, a black working class lesbian or Brandon White, a black gay youth. Why is that?"

And also: " A stance against anti-gay violence is unacceptable if it only imagines the White gay subject as its focus."

Ignoring the presumptuous statement about "many US citizens," it appears that the writer is demonstrating his own biases and selective memory. How can he fail to recall and note the significance of the suicide of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover?

As for the second quote: What! The writer is the only one making such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegation.

Once again we see that "no good deed goes unpunished," or, in this case, uncriticized.

Dave

February 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Grisham wrote: "Indeed, when we think of victims of homophobia-induced violence, many US citizens can easily recall the names of white gay males Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard but not Sakia Gunn, a black working class lesbian or Brandon White, a black gay youth. Why is that?"

And also: " A stance against anti-gay violence is unacceptable if it only imagines the White gay subject as its focus."

Ignoring the presumptuous statement about "many US citizens," it appears that the writer is demonstrating his own biases and selective memory. How can he fail to recall and note the significance of the suicide of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover?

As for the second quote: What! The writer is the only one making such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegation.

Once again we see that "no good deed goes unpunished," or, in this case, uncriticized.

Dave

February 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Grisham wrote: "Indeed, when we think of victims of homophobia-induced violence, many US citizens can easily recall the names of white gay males Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard but not Sakia Gunn, a black working class lesbian or Brandon White, a black gay youth. Why is that?"

And also: " A stance against anti-gay violence is unacceptable if it only imagines the White gay subject as its focus."

Ignoring the presumptuous statement about "many US citizens," it appears that the writer is demonstrating his own biases and selective memory. How can he fail to recall and note the significance of the suicide of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover?

As for the second quote: What! The writer is the only one making such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegation.

Once again we see that "no good deed goes unpunished," or, in this case, uncriticized.

Refreshing to see a White gay man critiquing White supremacy. You are the one to write this piece, and you are the one to critique the promotion of White supremacy among White gay men. It can't simply be Black people, and Black queer people, doing the work. I don't know how to feel about Dan Savage, as he isn't someone on my queer radar. I'm familiar with what he does, and I know his problematic history, but he hasn't been compelling enough for me to get to know so-to-speak. The quotes that you shared are very telling about his overall ideology, and I am hoping that he has reconsidered his earlier views, and will work towards a truth ethic that is affirming to all people.

Refreshing to see a White gay man critiquing White supremacy. You are the one to write this piece, and you are the one to critique the promotion of White supremacy among White gay men. It can't simply be Black people, and Black queer people, doing the work. I don't know how to feel about Dan Savage, as he isn't someone on my queer radar. I'm familiar with what he does, and I know his problematic history, but he hasn't been compelling enough for me to get to know so-to-speak. The quotes that you shared are very telling about his overall ideology, and I am hoping that he has reconsidered his earlier views, and will work towards a truth ethic that is affirming to all people.

Refreshing to see a White gay man critiquing White supremacy. You are the one to write this piece, and you are the one to critique the promotion of White supremacy among White gay men. It can't simply be Black people, and Black queer people, doing the work. I don't know how to feel about Dan Savage, as he isn't someone on my queer radar. I'm familiar with what he does, and I know his problematic history, but he hasn't been compelling enough for me to get to know so-to-speak. The quotes that you shared are very telling about his overall ideology, and I am hoping that he has reconsidered his earlier views, and will work towards a truth ethic that is affirming to all people.

Refreshing to see a White gay man critiquing White supremacy. You are the one to write this piece, and you are the one to critique the promotion of White supremacy among White gay men. It can't simply be Black people, and Black queer people, doing the work. I don't know how to feel about Dan Savage, as he isn't someone on my queer radar. I'm familiar with what he does, and I know his problematic history, but he hasn't been compelling enough for me to get to know so-to-speak. The quotes that you shared are very telling about his overall ideology, and I am hoping that he has reconsidered his earlier views, and will work towards a truth ethic that is affirming to all people.

Alec

February 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

You know, I've been reading Dan Savage for more than a decade now. And while I agree that the two examples you cite — on the Iraq war and Prop 8 — show him jumping to ugly conclusions in his emotional distress, one of the things I most admire about him is his openness to criticism and willingness to revise his opinions. It seems as if you're implying something scurrilous about his having changed his mind about Prop 8 and African-American voters by the time he went on the Colbert Report. Is the problem that he didn't make a big show of remorse on TV? That he just thought better of his initial — stupid, racist — reaction without a public mea culpa?

It feels to me as if hovering behind your whole argument here is an invidious, good dog/bad dog desire to separate our allies into the righteous elect and the crypto-reactionary preterite. Honestly, what's the point? Fine, Dan's the bad-dog preterite. He's like the white-supremacists who fought down Reconstruction! Do you feel like you've done some good for the world?

But, no, he's not. There are things to criticize him for. An unusual and admirable thing about Dan is that he seems to listen to and learn from criticism. Look at his evolution on trans issues, bi issues, size issues — even on both examples you cite, the Iraq war and Prop 8. He might be ham-fisted, as when he highlighted a video from a lesbian Latina poet from the Bronx as his favorite "It Gets Better" entry, but on the other hand, he acknowledged the concern that the IGBP over-represents middle- and upper-class white people, and he made a gesture towards addressing that. But the content is user-generated. He could do more, but he's not the major problem here. Systemic inequality and racism are.

I don't mean to lump you in with his glitter-bombers, but I also do want to distinguish him from Andrew Sullivan's "virtually normal" business. Dan's monogamish, partnered, child-rearing, nuclear family doesn't impose anything on me. I do wish he emphasized other goals than the main-stream marriage & DADT stuff, but I certainly don't oppose his views on either. I think Amanda Marcott on Pandagon got this really right:

"You can criticize Savage for being wrong or being sexist at times, but generally speaking, he’s trying to create an ethical system that’s anti-patriarchal not to fill a void, but because he believes that the old patriarchy was evil and unethical. He’s openly agreed with the feminist contention that the “old constraints” were more about oppressing gay people and straight women than anything else…. And that’s especially true if you grasp, as Savage often does, that straight men who are more interested in personal fulfillment than dominance are also screwed by a patriarchy." (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hey_ill_take_it_over_coverture_any_day/)

I didn't mean to go on for this long. My basic point is that it's good to accept and celebrate what's helpful and worthwhile about our allies' work. It's better to criticize in a spirit of fellowship and solidarity than to put on the Manichean, earth-scorching routine that this post does.

JM

March 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Spot on. Dan Savage makes mistakes and gaffes, but he IS open to criticism, and he's willing to change. It's far, FAR more than you can say for most people in the public sphere. These articles written to criticize Dan Savage are digging up old dirt and spreading it around, then calling him a hypocrite for changing his mind. You know what I see? A person learning things. Or, if you must have it this way, a person of privilege willing to reconsider what he says when he realizes he's spoken from a place of privilege.

He's a strong personality and likely rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that means his faults stand out, too. But even having this conversation is to totally negate all the good things he's done. And say what you will, but IGB really has helped put the LGBT bullying in schools on the map as real conversation in real-life America. Not that Savage was seeking to be an activist when he made it; he just made a video, probably thought it'd get a couple thousand views, maybe some responses. Other people took it and made it a huge movement.

I find articles like the OP's to be very childish. It's just as divisive as you claim Savage is being. If you want to actually help the LGBT community, don't waste your time writing articles blasting people in that very community. Or at least be brief and honest: you simply don't like Dan Savage's attitude, and you've found that it's easy to pick on him because he's white, upper-middle class, and male, and thus he's easy to cast as "The Man" that's keeping us down. If he were black, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were poor, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were female, you'd still hate his attitude. Just say you don't like Dan Savage and leave it at that. We'll respect you a lot more for it.

Alec

February 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

You know, I've been reading Dan Savage for more than a decade now. And while I agree that the two examples you cite — on the Iraq war and Prop 8 — show him jumping to ugly conclusions in his emotional distress, one of the things I most admire about him is his openness to criticism and willingness to revise his opinions. It seems as if you're implying something scurrilous about his having changed his mind about Prop 8 and African-American voters by the time he went on the Colbert Report. Is the problem that he didn't make a big show of remorse on TV? That he just thought better of his initial — stupid, racist — reaction without a public mea culpa?

It feels to me as if hovering behind your whole argument here is an invidious, good dog/bad dog desire to separate our allies into the righteous elect and the crypto-reactionary preterite. Honestly, what's the point? Fine, Dan's the bad-dog preterite. He's like the white-supremacists who fought down Reconstruction! Do you feel like you've done some good for the world?

But, no, he's not. There are things to criticize him for. An unusual and admirable thing about Dan is that he seems to listen to and learn from criticism. Look at his evolution on trans issues, bi issues, size issues — even on both examples you cite, the Iraq war and Prop 8. He might be ham-fisted, as when he highlighted a video from a lesbian Latina poet from the Bronx as his favorite "It Gets Better" entry, but on the other hand, he acknowledged the concern that the IGBP over-represents middle- and upper-class white people, and he made a gesture towards addressing that. But the content is user-generated. He could do more, but he's not the major problem here. Systemic inequality and racism are.

I don't mean to lump you in with his glitter-bombers, but I also do want to distinguish him from Andrew Sullivan's "virtually normal" business. Dan's monogamish, partnered, child-rearing, nuclear family doesn't impose anything on me. I do wish he emphasized other goals than the main-stream marriage & DADT stuff, but I certainly don't oppose his views on either. I think Amanda Marcott on Pandagon got this really right:

"You can criticize Savage for being wrong or being sexist at times, but generally speaking, he’s trying to create an ethical system that’s anti-patriarchal not to fill a void, but because he believes that the old patriarchy was evil and unethical. He’s openly agreed with the feminist contention that the “old constraints” were more about oppressing gay people and straight women than anything else…. And that’s especially true if you grasp, as Savage often does, that straight men who are more interested in personal fulfillment than dominance are also screwed by a patriarchy." (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hey_ill_take_it_over_coverture_any_day/)

I didn't mean to go on for this long. My basic point is that it's good to accept and celebrate what's helpful and worthwhile about our allies' work. It's better to criticize in a spirit of fellowship and solidarity than to put on the Manichean, earth-scorching routine that this post does.

JM

March 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Spot on. Dan Savage makes mistakes and gaffes, but he IS open to criticism, and he's willing to change. It's far, FAR more than you can say for most people in the public sphere. These articles written to criticize Dan Savage are digging up old dirt and spreading it around, then calling him a hypocrite for changing his mind. You know what I see? A person learning things. Or, if you must have it this way, a person of privilege willing to reconsider what he says when he realizes he's spoken from a place of privilege.

He's a strong personality and likely rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that means his faults stand out, too. But even having this conversation is to totally negate all the good things he's done. And say what you will, but IGB really has helped put the LGBT bullying in schools on the map as real conversation in real-life America. Not that Savage was seeking to be an activist when he made it; he just made a video, probably thought it'd get a couple thousand views, maybe some responses. Other people took it and made it a huge movement.

I find articles like the OP's to be very childish. It's just as divisive as you claim Savage is being. If you want to actually help the LGBT community, don't waste your time writing articles blasting people in that very community. Or at least be brief and honest: you simply don't like Dan Savage's attitude, and you've found that it's easy to pick on him because he's white, upper-middle class, and male, and thus he's easy to cast as "The Man" that's keeping us down. If he were black, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were poor, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were female, you'd still hate his attitude. Just say you don't like Dan Savage and leave it at that. We'll respect you a lot more for it.

Alec

February 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

You know, I've been reading Dan Savage for more than a decade now. And while I agree that the two examples you cite — on the Iraq war and Prop 8 — show him jumping to ugly conclusions in his emotional distress, one of the things I most admire about him is his openness to criticism and willingness to revise his opinions. It seems as if you're implying something scurrilous about his having changed his mind about Prop 8 and African-American voters by the time he went on the Colbert Report. Is the problem that he didn't make a big show of remorse on TV? That he just thought better of his initial — stupid, racist — reaction without a public mea culpa?

It feels to me as if hovering behind your whole argument here is an invidious, good dog/bad dog desire to separate our allies into the righteous elect and the crypto-reactionary preterite. Honestly, what's the point? Fine, Dan's the bad-dog preterite. He's like the white-supremacists who fought down Reconstruction! Do you feel like you've done some good for the world?

But, no, he's not. There are things to criticize him for. An unusual and admirable thing about Dan is that he seems to listen to and learn from criticism. Look at his evolution on trans issues, bi issues, size issues — even on both examples you cite, the Iraq war and Prop 8. He might be ham-fisted, as when he highlighted a video from a lesbian Latina poet from the Bronx as his favorite "It Gets Better" entry, but on the other hand, he acknowledged the concern that the IGBP over-represents middle- and upper-class white people, and he made a gesture towards addressing that. But the content is user-generated. He could do more, but he's not the major problem here. Systemic inequality and racism are.

I don't mean to lump you in with his glitter-bombers, but I also do want to distinguish him from Andrew Sullivan's "virtually normal" business. Dan's monogamish, partnered, child-rearing, nuclear family doesn't impose anything on me. I do wish he emphasized other goals than the main-stream marriage & DADT stuff, but I certainly don't oppose his views on either. I think Amanda Marcott on Pandagon got this really right:

"You can criticize Savage for being wrong or being sexist at times, but generally speaking, he’s trying to create an ethical system that’s anti-patriarchal not to fill a void, but because he believes that the old patriarchy was evil and unethical. He’s openly agreed with the feminist contention that the “old constraints” were more about oppressing gay people and straight women than anything else…. And that’s especially true if you grasp, as Savage often does, that straight men who are more interested in personal fulfillment than dominance are also screwed by a patriarchy." (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hey_ill_take_it_over_coverture_any_day/)

I didn't mean to go on for this long. My basic point is that it's good to accept and celebrate what's helpful and worthwhile about our allies' work. It's better to criticize in a spirit of fellowship and solidarity than to put on the Manichean, earth-scorching routine that this post does.

JM

March 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Spot on. Dan Savage makes mistakes and gaffes, but he IS open to criticism, and he's willing to change. It's far, FAR more than you can say for most people in the public sphere. These articles written to criticize Dan Savage are digging up old dirt and spreading it around, then calling him a hypocrite for changing his mind. You know what I see? A person learning things. Or, if you must have it this way, a person of privilege willing to reconsider what he says when he realizes he's spoken from a place of privilege.

He's a strong personality and likely rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that means his faults stand out, too. But even having this conversation is to totally negate all the good things he's done. And say what you will, but IGB really has helped put the LGBT bullying in schools on the map as real conversation in real-life America. Not that Savage was seeking to be an activist when he made it; he just made a video, probably thought it'd get a couple thousand views, maybe some responses. Other people took it and made it a huge movement.

I find articles like the OP's to be very childish. It's just as divisive as you claim Savage is being. If you want to actually help the LGBT community, don't waste your time writing articles blasting people in that very community. Or at least be brief and honest: you simply don't like Dan Savage's attitude, and you've found that it's easy to pick on him because he's white, upper-middle class, and male, and thus he's easy to cast as "The Man" that's keeping us down. If he were black, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were poor, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were female, you'd still hate his attitude. Just say you don't like Dan Savage and leave it at that. We'll respect you a lot more for it.

Alec

February 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

You know, I've been reading Dan Savage for more than a decade now. And while I agree that the two examples you cite — on the Iraq war and Prop 8 — show him jumping to ugly conclusions in his emotional distress, one of the things I most admire about him is his openness to criticism and willingness to revise his opinions. It seems as if you're implying something scurrilous about his having changed his mind about Prop 8 and African-American voters by the time he went on the Colbert Report. Is the problem that he didn't make a big show of remorse on TV? That he just thought better of his initial — stupid, racist — reaction without a public mea culpa?

It feels to me as if hovering behind your whole argument here is an invidious, good dog/bad dog desire to separate our allies into the righteous elect and the crypto-reactionary preterite. Honestly, what's the point? Fine, Dan's the bad-dog preterite. He's like the white-supremacists who fought down Reconstruction! Do you feel like you've done some good for the world?

But, no, he's not. There are things to criticize him for. An unusual and admirable thing about Dan is that he seems to listen to and learn from criticism. Look at his evolution on trans issues, bi issues, size issues — even on both examples you cite, the Iraq war and Prop 8. He might be ham-fisted, as when he highlighted a video from a lesbian Latina poet from the Bronx as his favorite "It Gets Better" entry, but on the other hand, he acknowledged the concern that the IGBP over-represents middle- and upper-class white people, and he made a gesture towards addressing that. But the content is user-generated. He could do more, but he's not the major problem here. Systemic inequality and racism are.

I don't mean to lump you in with his glitter-bombers, but I also do want to distinguish him from Andrew Sullivan's "virtually normal" business. Dan's monogamish, partnered, child-rearing, nuclear family doesn't impose anything on me. I do wish he emphasized other goals than the main-stream marriage & DADT stuff, but I certainly don't oppose his views on either. I think Amanda Marcott on Pandagon got this really right:

"You can criticize Savage for being wrong or being sexist at times, but generally speaking, he’s trying to create an ethical system that’s anti-patriarchal not to fill a void, but because he believes that the old patriarchy was evil and unethical. He’s openly agreed with the feminist contention that the “old constraints” were more about oppressing gay people and straight women than anything else…. And that’s especially true if you grasp, as Savage often does, that straight men who are more interested in personal fulfillment than dominance are also screwed by a patriarchy." (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hey_ill_take_it_over_coverture_any_day/)

I didn't mean to go on for this long. My basic point is that it's good to accept and celebrate what's helpful and worthwhile about our allies' work. It's better to criticize in a spirit of fellowship and solidarity than to put on the Manichean, earth-scorching routine that this post does.

JM

March 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Spot on. Dan Savage makes mistakes and gaffes, but he IS open to criticism, and he's willing to change. It's far, FAR more than you can say for most people in the public sphere. These articles written to criticize Dan Savage are digging up old dirt and spreading it around, then calling him a hypocrite for changing his mind. You know what I see? A person learning things. Or, if you must have it this way, a person of privilege willing to reconsider what he says when he realizes he's spoken from a place of privilege.

He's a strong personality and likely rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And that means his faults stand out, too. But even having this conversation is to totally negate all the good things he's done. And say what you will, but IGB really has helped put the LGBT bullying in schools on the map as real conversation in real-life America. Not that Savage was seeking to be an activist when he made it; he just made a video, probably thought it'd get a couple thousand views, maybe some responses. Other people took it and made it a huge movement.

I find articles like the OP's to be very childish. It's just as divisive as you claim Savage is being. If you want to actually help the LGBT community, don't waste your time writing articles blasting people in that very community. Or at least be brief and honest: you simply don't like Dan Savage's attitude, and you've found that it's easy to pick on him because he's white, upper-middle class, and male, and thus he's easy to cast as "The Man" that's keeping us down. If he were black, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were poor, you'd still hate his attitude. If he were female, you'd still hate his attitude. Just say you don't like Dan Savage and leave it at that. We'll respect you a lot more for it.

Maeve

February 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I agree that the "It Gets Better Campaign" would be more powerful if it were more inclusive. What about all of the kids getting bullied because they are fat, skinny, dumb, smart, tall, short, socially awkward, or just different in some way? I have done a lot of work on anti-bullying in schools, and in the schools where I've done training we teach that the message is NO ONE gets bullied. When you single out LGBTQ youth and say "no LGBTQ youth will get bullied" it leaves open the door for the homophobes to call special treatment and only intensify the bullying. I believe it is putting more queer youth in danger, and ignoring the experience of other bullied youth, to focus so singly on queer youth as victims. How about inviting all the grown up nerds to explain to their younger counterparts how it gets better as well?

I don't know exactly what comparison you are trying to draw in the article about the experience of bullied queer youth and youth of color or low-income youth, but the It Gets Better campaign is about bullying and how the influence of your peers is so different in middle school and high school than it is in the real world. This is true for all kids….including, for example, low-income children going to violent high schools. In the case of both low-income and queer youth, making it better may mean leaving the place where they grow up. The lived experience is different however if the low-income youth is not being bullied and so I don't think that the experience of kids growing up in rough neighborhoods aside from their experience of bullying needs to be included in the It Gets Better campaign in order for it to work or be legitimate. Bullying implies a difference of Power between the bully and victim, and it also implies a pattern of behavior over time. A person is bullied by another person or group of people – when it happens by an *institution* it is something different than bullying.

Maeve

February 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I agree that the "It Gets Better Campaign" would be more powerful if it were more inclusive. What about all of the kids getting bullied because they are fat, skinny, dumb, smart, tall, short, socially awkward, or just different in some way? I have done a lot of work on anti-bullying in schools, and in the schools where I've done training we teach that the message is NO ONE gets bullied. When you single out LGBTQ youth and say "no LGBTQ youth will get bullied" it leaves open the door for the homophobes to call special treatment and only intensify the bullying. I believe it is putting more queer youth in danger, and ignoring the experience of other bullied youth, to focus so singly on queer youth as victims. How about inviting all the grown up nerds to explain to their younger counterparts how it gets better as well?

I don't know exactly what comparison you are trying to draw in the article about the experience of bullied queer youth and youth of color or low-income youth, but the It Gets Better campaign is about bullying and how the influence of your peers is so different in middle school and high school than it is in the real world. This is true for all kids….including, for example, low-income children going to violent high schools. In the case of both low-income and queer youth, making it better may mean leaving the place where they grow up. The lived experience is different however if the low-income youth is not being bullied and so I don't think that the experience of kids growing up in rough neighborhoods aside from their experience of bullying needs to be included in the It Gets Better campaign in order for it to work or be legitimate. Bullying implies a difference of Power between the bully and victim, and it also implies a pattern of behavior over time. A person is bullied by another person or group of people – when it happens by an *institution* it is something different than bullying.

Maeve

February 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I agree that the "It Gets Better Campaign" would be more powerful if it were more inclusive. What about all of the kids getting bullied because they are fat, skinny, dumb, smart, tall, short, socially awkward, or just different in some way? I have done a lot of work on anti-bullying in schools, and in the schools where I've done training we teach that the message is NO ONE gets bullied. When you single out LGBTQ youth and say "no LGBTQ youth will get bullied" it leaves open the door for the homophobes to call special treatment and only intensify the bullying. I believe it is putting more queer youth in danger, and ignoring the experience of other bullied youth, to focus so singly on queer youth as victims. How about inviting all the grown up nerds to explain to their younger counterparts how it gets better as well?

I don't know exactly what comparison you are trying to draw in the article about the experience of bullied queer youth and youth of color or low-income youth, but the It Gets Better campaign is about bullying and how the influence of your peers is so different in middle school and high school than it is in the real world. This is true for all kids….including, for example, low-income children going to violent high schools. In the case of both low-income and queer youth, making it better may mean leaving the place where they grow up. The lived experience is different however if the low-income youth is not being bullied and so I don't think that the experience of kids growing up in rough neighborhoods aside from their experience of bullying needs to be included in the It Gets Better campaign in order for it to work or be legitimate. Bullying implies a difference of Power between the bully and victim, and it also implies a pattern of behavior over time. A person is bullied by another person or group of people – when it happens by an *institution* it is something different than bullying.

Maeve

February 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I agree that the "It Gets Better Campaign" would be more powerful if it were more inclusive. What about all of the kids getting bullied because they are fat, skinny, dumb, smart, tall, short, socially awkward, or just different in some way? I have done a lot of work on anti-bullying in schools, and in the schools where I've done training we teach that the message is NO ONE gets bullied. When you single out LGBTQ youth and say "no LGBTQ youth will get bullied" it leaves open the door for the homophobes to call special treatment and only intensify the bullying. I believe it is putting more queer youth in danger, and ignoring the experience of other bullied youth, to focus so singly on queer youth as victims. How about inviting all the grown up nerds to explain to their younger counterparts how it gets better as well?

I don't know exactly what comparison you are trying to draw in the article about the experience of bullied queer youth and youth of color or low-income youth, but the It Gets Better campaign is about bullying and how the influence of your peers is so different in middle school and high school than it is in the real world. This is true for all kids….including, for example, low-income children going to violent high schools. In the case of both low-income and queer youth, making it better may mean leaving the place where they grow up. The lived experience is different however if the low-income youth is not being bullied and so I don't think that the experience of kids growing up in rough neighborhoods aside from their experience of bullying needs to be included in the It Gets Better campaign in order for it to work or be legitimate. Bullying implies a difference of Power between the bully and victim, and it also implies a pattern of behavior over time. A person is bullied by another person or group of people – when it happens by an *institution* it is something different than bullying.

Holden

February 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Fair points against the man, but far fewer against the initiative to stop teen suicide, which, however inconvenient, seems to have come from that same, albeit imperfect person. I wish both gay and straight were more tolerant of difference, and, while easy to point a finger at certain groups here or there statistically more prone to be against this or for that, the better solution, I think, is to do as Dan Savage did, apparently at least once, in speaking to our common humanity and shared hope. And my hope is that some of the 30,000 entries and the 40 million views that have so far come of the online campaign are able to better represent our true and incalculable multiplicity, surely better than any one man can himself do justice to.

Holden

February 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Fair points against the man, but far fewer against the initiative to stop teen suicide, which, however inconvenient, seems to have come from that same, albeit imperfect person. I wish both gay and straight were more tolerant of difference, and, while easy to point a finger at certain groups here or there statistically more prone to be against this or for that, the better solution, I think, is to do as Dan Savage did, apparently at least once, in speaking to our common humanity and shared hope. And my hope is that some of the 30,000 entries and the 40 million views that have so far come of the online campaign are able to better represent our true and incalculable multiplicity, surely better than any one man can himself do justice to.

Holden

February 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Fair points against the man, but far fewer against the initiative to stop teen suicide, which, however inconvenient, seems to have come from that same, albeit imperfect person. I wish both gay and straight were more tolerant of difference, and, while easy to point a finger at certain groups here or there statistically more prone to be against this or for that, the better solution, I think, is to do as Dan Savage did, apparently at least once, in speaking to our common humanity and shared hope. And my hope is that some of the 30,000 entries and the 40 million views that have so far come of the online campaign are able to better represent our true and incalculable multiplicity, surely better than any one man can himself do justice to.

Holden

February 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Fair points against the man, but far fewer against the initiative to stop teen suicide, which, however inconvenient, seems to have come from that same, albeit imperfect person. I wish both gay and straight were more tolerant of difference, and, while easy to point a finger at certain groups here or there statistically more prone to be against this or for that, the better solution, I think, is to do as Dan Savage did, apparently at least once, in speaking to our common humanity and shared hope. And my hope is that some of the 30,000 entries and the 40 million views that have so far come of the online campaign are able to better represent our true and incalculable multiplicity, surely better than any one man can himself do justice to.

Sister KC

February 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I think it's good to question national/international campaigns but doing so at the cost of implying Dan Savage is racist in some way is plain wrong.

Why single him out? Why single this campaign out? It's directed at reaching out to LGBTQ youth and is very prolific. What next, talk about the racial diversity deficiencies of PFLAG and GLSEN? No doubt they are largely built and utilized by white folk.

There certainly is racism institutionalized in our government and media, as in homophobia, as is sexism. It's taken decades for various minorities to fight being the butt of insensitivity and even still ethnic discrimination goes on.

To me it would be more fair to talk about how gay activists can be racially insensitive just as there is rampant homophobia in other minority cultures. This isn't new and singling out Savage and this highly visible campaign isn't helpful IMHO. Less confrontational might be to suggest if and how the campaign could be more inclusive.

We are fighting an age-old war on many fronts and we can use more help. Knocking down someone on the front lines because of their lack of social justice know-how becomes another example of energy-sucking infighting. Picking out quotes and judging those in a vacuum is less convincing to me that an interview with Savage who is picked over here.

We need more solutions than targeting of those willing to put their life into activism. You don't approve exactly of that activism? Then offer suggestions. Try launching your own project free of all that you were born with. As far as I can tell Savage speaks his mind and corrects himself when he errs, and is doing something. His job as a writer is to get the talking points even brought up. He has an audience and is making use of his platform, generally for good. I applaud him for trying and often succeeding.

Sister KC

February 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I think it's good to question national/international campaigns but doing so at the cost of implying Dan Savage is racist in some way is plain wrong.

Why single him out? Why single this campaign out? It's directed at reaching out to LGBTQ youth and is very prolific. What next, talk about the racial diversity deficiencies of PFLAG and GLSEN? No doubt they are largely built and utilized by white folk.

There certainly is racism institutionalized in our government and media, as in homophobia, as is sexism. It's taken decades for various minorities to fight being the butt of insensitivity and even still ethnic discrimination goes on.

To me it would be more fair to talk about how gay activists can be racially insensitive just as there is rampant homophobia in other minority cultures. This isn't new and singling out Savage and this highly visible campaign isn't helpful IMHO. Less confrontational might be to suggest if and how the campaign could be more inclusive.

We are fighting an age-old war on many fronts and we can use more help. Knocking down someone on the front lines because of their lack of social justice know-how becomes another example of energy-sucking infighting. Picking out quotes and judging those in a vacuum is less convincing to me that an interview with Savage who is picked over here.

We need more solutions than targeting of those willing to put their life into activism. You don't approve exactly of that activism? Then offer suggestions. Try launching your own project free of all that you were born with. As far as I can tell Savage speaks his mind and corrects himself when he errs, and is doing something. His job as a writer is to get the talking points even brought up. He has an audience and is making use of his platform, generally for good. I applaud him for trying and often succeeding.

Sister KC

February 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I think it's good to question national/international campaigns but doing so at the cost of implying Dan Savage is racist in some way is plain wrong.

Why single him out? Why single this campaign out? It's directed at reaching out to LGBTQ youth and is very prolific. What next, talk about the racial diversity deficiencies of PFLAG and GLSEN? No doubt they are largely built and utilized by white folk.

There certainly is racism institutionalized in our government and media, as in homophobia, as is sexism. It's taken decades for various minorities to fight being the butt of insensitivity and even still ethnic discrimination goes on.

To me it would be more fair to talk about how gay activists can be racially insensitive just as there is rampant homophobia in other minority cultures. This isn't new and singling out Savage and this highly visible campaign isn't helpful IMHO. Less confrontational might be to suggest if and how the campaign could be more inclusive.

We are fighting an age-old war on many fronts and we can use more help. Knocking down someone on the front lines because of their lack of social justice know-how becomes another example of energy-sucking infighting. Picking out quotes and judging those in a vacuum is less convincing to me that an interview with Savage who is picked over here.

We need more solutions than targeting of those willing to put their life into activism. You don't approve exactly of that activism? Then offer suggestions. Try launching your own project free of all that you were born with. As far as I can tell Savage speaks his mind and corrects himself when he errs, and is doing something. His job as a writer is to get the talking points even brought up. He has an audience and is making use of his platform, generally for good. I applaud him for trying and often succeeding.

Sister KC

February 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I think it's good to question national/international campaigns but doing so at the cost of implying Dan Savage is racist in some way is plain wrong.

Why single him out? Why single this campaign out? It's directed at reaching out to LGBTQ youth and is very prolific. What next, talk about the racial diversity deficiencies of PFLAG and GLSEN? No doubt they are largely built and utilized by white folk.

There certainly is racism institutionalized in our government and media, as in homophobia, as is sexism. It's taken decades for various minorities to fight being the butt of insensitivity and even still ethnic discrimination goes on.

To me it would be more fair to talk about how gay activists can be racially insensitive just as there is rampant homophobia in other minority cultures. This isn't new and singling out Savage and this highly visible campaign isn't helpful IMHO. Less confrontational might be to suggest if and how the campaign could be more inclusive.

We are fighting an age-old war on many fronts and we can use more help. Knocking down someone on the front lines because of their lack of social justice know-how becomes another example of energy-sucking infighting. Picking out quotes and judging those in a vacuum is less convincing to me that an interview with Savage who is picked over here.

We need more solutions than targeting of those willing to put their life into activism. You don't approve exactly of that activism? Then offer suggestions. Try launching your own project free of all that you were born with. As far as I can tell Savage speaks his mind and corrects himself when he errs, and is doing something. His job as a writer is to get the talking points even brought up. He has an audience and is making use of his platform, generally for good. I applaud him for trying and often succeeding.

90211

February 29, 2012 at 4:20 am

While I am not always opposed to airing the dirty laundry—I think this article goes too far. It seems like an attack on the person, and this is a problem because he's actually one of us–that is, if you can possibly accept the notion of a queer "us." It's so easy to rip each other apart–and we are so good at it. IGB raised real awareness and we should all get behind it. And for those upset that it does not have a more radical call for systemic change….please! Choosing to survive in a system intent on your destruction is a brave, bold and radical act. Audre Lorde taught us that. Not every 14 year old can fight back in the way you imagine withoutt serious consequences. It's not that I think all of your points are without merit, but rather, I accuse you of falling into the not so radical trap of trying to be a radical white queer through attacking other white queers who you perceive as not 'getting it'. I challenge you to write from a place of love and with a clear goal of coalition building. Write to build a movement, not to destroy one. Attacking Savage is easy. Now figure out how to build with him, a move that actually fights oppression.

90211

February 29, 2012 at 4:20 am

While I am not always opposed to airing the dirty laundry—I think this article goes too far. It seems like an attack on the person, and this is a problem because he's actually one of us–that is, if you can possibly accept the notion of a queer "us." It's so easy to rip each other apart–and we are so good at it. IGB raised real awareness and we should all get behind it. And for those upset that it does not have a more radical call for systemic change….please! Choosing to survive in a system intent on your destruction is a brave, bold and radical act. Audre Lorde taught us that. Not every 14 year old can fight back in the way you imagine withoutt serious consequences. It's not that I think all of your points are without merit, but rather, I accuse you of falling into the not so radical trap of trying to be a radical white queer through attacking other white queers who you perceive as not 'getting it'. I challenge you to write from a place of love and with a clear goal of coalition building. Write to build a movement, not to destroy one. Attacking Savage is easy. Now figure out how to build with him, a move that actually fights oppression.

90211

February 29, 2012 at 4:20 am

While I am not always opposed to airing the dirty laundry—I think this article goes too far. It seems like an attack on the person, and this is a problem because he's actually one of us–that is, if you can possibly accept the notion of a queer "us." It's so easy to rip each other apart–and we are so good at it. IGB raised real awareness and we should all get behind it. And for those upset that it does not have a more radical call for systemic change….please! Choosing to survive in a system intent on your destruction is a brave, bold and radical act. Audre Lorde taught us that. Not every 14 year old can fight back in the way you imagine withoutt serious consequences. It's not that I think all of your points are without merit, but rather, I accuse you of falling into the not so radical trap of trying to be a radical white queer through attacking other white queers who you perceive as not 'getting it'. I challenge you to write from a place of love and with a clear goal of coalition building. Write to build a movement, not to destroy one. Attacking Savage is easy. Now figure out how to build with him, a move that actually fights oppression.

90211

February 29, 2012 at 4:20 am

While I am not always opposed to airing the dirty laundry—I think this article goes too far. It seems like an attack on the person, and this is a problem because he's actually one of us–that is, if you can possibly accept the notion of a queer "us." It's so easy to rip each other apart–and we are so good at it. IGB raised real awareness and we should all get behind it. And for those upset that it does not have a more radical call for systemic change….please! Choosing to survive in a system intent on your destruction is a brave, bold and radical act. Audre Lorde taught us that. Not every 14 year old can fight back in the way you imagine withoutt serious consequences. It's not that I think all of your points are without merit, but rather, I accuse you of falling into the not so radical trap of trying to be a radical white queer through attacking other white queers who you perceive as not 'getting it'. I challenge you to write from a place of love and with a clear goal of coalition building. Write to build a movement, not to destroy one. Attacking Savage is easy. Now figure out how to build with him, a move that actually fights oppression.

Like those who blindly worship at the altar of Ron Paul, those in the LGBT communities who worship at the altar of Dan Savage will likely simply reinforce the bubble they live in, should they even allow themselves to read this essay. Such people do not usually allow any criticism of Savage to penetrate that bubble. I am sure you have encountered such people and will likely encounter exponentially more after composing this piece.

In my experience, many of these "Savages" which is what I somewhat comically call them, are white, gay men with unacknowledged white gay male privilege, class privilege and considerable social capitol. Because of this, I am particularly happy that you, Kirk Grisham, an openly gay white male, has authored this piece.

Of course LGBT people of color, broader demographics within the tansgender community and broader demographics within the bisexually identified communities have been hip to Dan Savage and his "isims" and "obias" and race baiting for decades now and have also been expressing those understandings for just as long. And when doing so we have often been met with that impenetrable Savage bubble among Savages, that we know oh so well. And with racist, biphobic and transphobic rants by those Savages who cannot stand the thought of their God being criticized by members of the LGBT family they hold in contemptible regard.

My hat is off to you Kirk Grisham. Thank you for the contribution you make to the benefit of the entire LGBT communities and beyond with this well crafted essay.

And thank you for so far addressing and responding with class and respect to those on this comment thread even when they appear to be inappropriately or lazily projecting their own stuff onto you.

Like those who blindly worship at the altar of Ron Paul, those in the LGBT communities who worship at the altar of Dan Savage will likely simply reinforce the bubble they live in, should they even allow themselves to read this essay. Such people do not usually allow any criticism of Savage to penetrate that bubble. I am sure you have encountered such people and will likely encounter exponentially more after composing this piece.

In my experience, many of these "Savages" which is what I somewhat comically call them, are white, gay men with unacknowledged white gay male privilege, class privilege and considerable social capitol. Because of this, I am particularly happy that you, Kirk Grisham, an openly gay white male, has authored this piece.

Of course LGBT people of color, broader demographics within the tansgender community and broader demographics within the bisexually identified communities have been hip to Dan Savage and his "isims" and "obias" and race baiting for decades now and have also been expressing those understandings for just as long. And when doing so we have often been met with that impenetrable Savage bubble among Savages, that we know oh so well. And with racist, biphobic and transphobic rants by those Savages who cannot stand the thought of their God being criticized by members of the LGBT family they hold in contemptible regard.

My hat is off to you Kirk Grisham. Thank you for the contribution you make to the benefit of the entire LGBT communities and beyond with this well crafted essay.

And thank you for so far addressing and responding with class and respect to those on this comment thread even when they appear to be inappropriately or lazily projecting their own stuff onto you.

Like those who blindly worship at the altar of Ron Paul, those in the LGBT communities who worship at the altar of Dan Savage will likely simply reinforce the bubble they live in, should they even allow themselves to read this essay. Such people do not usually allow any criticism of Savage to penetrate that bubble. I am sure you have encountered such people and will likely encounter exponentially more after composing this piece.

In my experience, many of these "Savages" which is what I somewhat comically call them, are white, gay men with unacknowledged white gay male privilege, class privilege and considerable social capitol. Because of this, I am particularly happy that you, Kirk Grisham, an openly gay white male, has authored this piece.

Of course LGBT people of color, broader demographics within the tansgender community and broader demographics within the bisexually identified communities have been hip to Dan Savage and his "isims" and "obias" and race baiting for decades now and have also been expressing those understandings for just as long. And when doing so we have often been met with that impenetrable Savage bubble among Savages, that we know oh so well. And with racist, biphobic and transphobic rants by those Savages who cannot stand the thought of their God being criticized by members of the LGBT family they hold in contemptible regard.

My hat is off to you Kirk Grisham. Thank you for the contribution you make to the benefit of the entire LGBT communities and beyond with this well crafted essay.

And thank you for so far addressing and responding with class and respect to those on this comment thread even when they appear to be inappropriately or lazily projecting their own stuff onto you.

Like those who blindly worship at the altar of Ron Paul, those in the LGBT communities who worship at the altar of Dan Savage will likely simply reinforce the bubble they live in, should they even allow themselves to read this essay. Such people do not usually allow any criticism of Savage to penetrate that bubble. I am sure you have encountered such people and will likely encounter exponentially more after composing this piece.

In my experience, many of these "Savages" which is what I somewhat comically call them, are white, gay men with unacknowledged white gay male privilege, class privilege and considerable social capitol. Because of this, I am particularly happy that you, Kirk Grisham, an openly gay white male, has authored this piece.

Of course LGBT people of color, broader demographics within the tansgender community and broader demographics within the bisexually identified communities have been hip to Dan Savage and his "isims" and "obias" and race baiting for decades now and have also been expressing those understandings for just as long. And when doing so we have often been met with that impenetrable Savage bubble among Savages, that we know oh so well. And with racist, biphobic and transphobic rants by those Savages who cannot stand the thought of their God being criticized by members of the LGBT family they hold in contemptible regard.

My hat is off to you Kirk Grisham. Thank you for the contribution you make to the benefit of the entire LGBT communities and beyond with this well crafted essay.

And thank you for so far addressing and responding with class and respect to those on this comment thread even when they appear to be inappropriately or lazily projecting their own stuff onto you.

Mohammed Al-Alwan

February 29, 2012 at 5:20 am

My biggest critisim of the "it gets better campaign" how celebrities took it under their wing for popularization reasons. I personally think these people aren't/shouldn't be a role model for society.

Mohammed Al-Alwan

February 29, 2012 at 5:20 am

My biggest critisim of the "it gets better campaign" how celebrities took it under their wing for popularization reasons. I personally think these people aren't/shouldn't be a role model for society.

Mohammed Al-Alwan

February 29, 2012 at 5:20 am

My biggest critisim of the "it gets better campaign" how celebrities took it under their wing for popularization reasons. I personally think these people aren't/shouldn't be a role model for society.

Mohammed Al-Alwan

February 29, 2012 at 5:20 am

My biggest critisim of the "it gets better campaign" how celebrities took it under their wing for popularization reasons. I personally think these people aren't/shouldn't be a role model for society.

Kirk Grisham

February 29, 2012 at 6:21 am

Thank you everyone for responding. I think this discussion garnered a lot more attention and analysis that I could have ever hoped for!

Much of my argument- my attempt, was to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privileging discourses operate, even in liberal or "progressive" contexts. This discussion is not about hating Dan Savage, or middle class white-gay men. It is about instigating, about creating tension around many of our mainstream views around right and wrong, good and bad, when it comes to race, class and sexuality.

I used Dan Savage and "It Gets Better" as a vehicle for that argument because there is a lot of discussion about the campaign, and also his work, and that of organizations like the Human Rights Campaign e.g. gay marriage.

I recognize that I do not offer any better solution, but, in terms of my critique, my focus was on the thought behind our response, rather than the actual response. The point was not to hand wring or punish a good deed, but to call out the implicit, the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts.

Sister KC

March 1, 2012 at 11:48 am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I recommend starting out with these qualifications first so we see this as an example that we can use as a launching point rather than the main target and end goal. We all have work to do so I applaud you for trying to use your platform to instigate.

Kirk Grisham

February 29, 2012 at 6:21 am

Thank you everyone for responding. I think this discussion garnered a lot more attention and analysis that I could have ever hoped for!

Much of my argument- my attempt, was to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privileging discourses operate, even in liberal or "progressive" contexts. This discussion is not about hating Dan Savage, or middle class white-gay men. It is about instigating, about creating tension around many of our mainstream views around right and wrong, good and bad, when it comes to race, class and sexuality.

I used Dan Savage and "It Gets Better" as a vehicle for that argument because there is a lot of discussion about the campaign, and also his work, and that of organizations like the Human Rights Campaign e.g. gay marriage.

I recognize that I do not offer any better solution, but, in terms of my critique, my focus was on the thought behind our response, rather than the actual response. The point was not to hand wring or punish a good deed, but to call out the implicit, the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts.

Sister KC

March 1, 2012 at 11:48 am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I recommend starting out with these qualifications first so we see this as an example that we can use as a launching point rather than the main target and end goal. We all have work to do so I applaud you for trying to use your platform to instigate.

Kirk Grisham

February 29, 2012 at 6:21 am

Thank you everyone for responding. I think this discussion garnered a lot more attention and analysis that I could have ever hoped for!

Much of my argument- my attempt, was to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privileging discourses operate, even in liberal or "progressive" contexts. This discussion is not about hating Dan Savage, or middle class white-gay men. It is about instigating, about creating tension around many of our mainstream views around right and wrong, good and bad, when it comes to race, class and sexuality.

I used Dan Savage and "It Gets Better" as a vehicle for that argument because there is a lot of discussion about the campaign, and also his work, and that of organizations like the Human Rights Campaign e.g. gay marriage.

I recognize that I do not offer any better solution, but, in terms of my critique, my focus was on the thought behind our response, rather than the actual response. The point was not to hand wring or punish a good deed, but to call out the implicit, the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts.

Sister KC

March 1, 2012 at 11:48 am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I recommend starting out with these qualifications first so we see this as an example that we can use as a launching point rather than the main target and end goal. We all have work to do so I applaud you for trying to use your platform to instigate.

Kirk Grisham

February 29, 2012 at 6:21 am

Thank you everyone for responding. I think this discussion garnered a lot more attention and analysis that I could have ever hoped for!

Much of my argument- my attempt, was to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privileging discourses operate, even in liberal or "progressive" contexts. This discussion is not about hating Dan Savage, or middle class white-gay men. It is about instigating, about creating tension around many of our mainstream views around right and wrong, good and bad, when it comes to race, class and sexuality.

I used Dan Savage and "It Gets Better" as a vehicle for that argument because there is a lot of discussion about the campaign, and also his work, and that of organizations like the Human Rights Campaign e.g. gay marriage.

I recognize that I do not offer any better solution, but, in terms of my critique, my focus was on the thought behind our response, rather than the actual response. The point was not to hand wring or punish a good deed, but to call out the implicit, the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts.

Sister KC

March 1, 2012 at 11:48 am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I recommend starting out with these qualifications first so we see this as an example that we can use as a launching point rather than the main target and end goal. We all have work to do so I applaud you for trying to use your platform to instigate.

Kirk, one of the main reasons this essay has garnered so much attention is because of something you yourself provided in your last post here. It is because you, with this essay, have "attempted to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privilege discourses operate even in liberal or progressive contexts." Many people who exist within so called liberal/progressive contexts are resistant to look at such things. It is the same reason why a little known blogger named Ashley F. Miller wrote an equally well crafted post critical of Ron Paul a few months ago and as of today that essay has garnered more than 560 comments. That response is more than 500 times the response for anything she has ever written on that blog. And people are still commenting more than TWO MONTHS after her initial post (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-does-anyone-like-ron-paul/).

It is not far fetched to compare Ron Paul's fan club to Dan Savage's fan club. It is really just the scope that is different. Both Paul and Savage have large support from smart, informed and rather liberal people who are able to recognize the contributions their hero has made but who have become blind, as a part of their hero worship, to, as you say so eloquently, "the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts."

Kirk, one of the main reasons this essay has garnered so much attention is because of something you yourself provided in your last post here. It is because you, with this essay, have "attempted to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privilege discourses operate even in liberal or progressive contexts." Many people who exist within so called liberal/progressive contexts are resistant to look at such things. It is the same reason why a little known blogger named Ashley F. Miller wrote an equally well crafted post critical of Ron Paul a few months ago and as of today that essay has garnered more than 560 comments. That response is more than 500 times the response for anything she has ever written on that blog. And people are still commenting more than TWO MONTHS after her initial post (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-does-anyone-like-ron-paul/).

It is not far fetched to compare Ron Paul's fan club to Dan Savage's fan club. It is really just the scope that is different. Both Paul and Savage have large support from smart, informed and rather liberal people who are able to recognize the contributions their hero has made but who have become blind, as a part of their hero worship, to, as you say so eloquently, "the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts."

Kirk, one of the main reasons this essay has garnered so much attention is because of something you yourself provided in your last post here. It is because you, with this essay, have "attempted to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privilege discourses operate even in liberal or progressive contexts." Many people who exist within so called liberal/progressive contexts are resistant to look at such things. It is the same reason why a little known blogger named Ashley F. Miller wrote an equally well crafted post critical of Ron Paul a few months ago and as of today that essay has garnered more than 560 comments. That response is more than 500 times the response for anything she has ever written on that blog. And people are still commenting more than TWO MONTHS after her initial post (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-does-anyone-like-ron-paul/).

It is not far fetched to compare Ron Paul's fan club to Dan Savage's fan club. It is really just the scope that is different. Both Paul and Savage have large support from smart, informed and rather liberal people who are able to recognize the contributions their hero has made but who have become blind, as a part of their hero worship, to, as you say so eloquently, "the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts."

Kirk, one of the main reasons this essay has garnered so much attention is because of something you yourself provided in your last post here. It is because you, with this essay, have "attempted to analyze how white supremacist ideologies and privilege discourses operate even in liberal or progressive contexts." Many people who exist within so called liberal/progressive contexts are resistant to look at such things. It is the same reason why a little known blogger named Ashley F. Miller wrote an equally well crafted post critical of Ron Paul a few months ago and as of today that essay has garnered more than 560 comments. That response is more than 500 times the response for anything she has ever written on that blog. And people are still commenting more than TWO MONTHS after her initial post (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-does-anyone-like-ron-paul/).

It is not far fetched to compare Ron Paul's fan club to Dan Savage's fan club. It is really just the scope that is different. Both Paul and Savage have large support from smart, informed and rather liberal people who are able to recognize the contributions their hero has made but who have become blind, as a part of their hero worship, to, as you say so eloquently, "the subconscious processes wherein frameworks, hegemony operate to maintain racial and gender inequality even through the most progressive contexts."

Really?.....

February 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Yawn.

Wow. Just like the trans mafia who are after Savage, you nit-pick through 20 years of writing to find two pieces that you feel allow you to tear down his, generally VERY AMAZING work for the lgbt community. (and the straight sex-positive community!)

Guess what Kirk? It Gets Better is an *open source* movement. Don't see enough people of color? You can't blame Dan. ANYONE can create and upload a video. If POC don't make and upload videos they contribute to their own invisibility. This isn't Savage's fault. I have seen tons of videos by POC. There's even a Latino channel, in Spanish. And many videos for the deaf using ASL!

If your not seeing it – you're willfully not looking. But yeah, savage is… TOTALLY RACIST!!!

And if Savage took down the post about Prop 8 and African American voters he should be commended. He spoke wrong – based on wrong information – and took down the post. He did the right thing. But yeah… That makes him TOTALLY RACIST!!!!

Do you have any concept of how many people died during Saddam's (what you now call) "secular" regime for being from the wrong tribe, wrong religion, or wrong sex or sexuality?!? Good times for Iraqis during those Saddam's days…! But, yeah because at the time Savage trusted that the job might be done skillfully, quickly without possibly becoming a quagmire under the blundering Bush regime he's, like, TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Jesus. It's so hard to read this bullshit about Savage all the time. Boo hoo. The world isn't everything you want it to be, and it couldn't possibly be anyone's fault but that asshole Dan Savage because he's TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Try again when you've done half the good Savage has, garnered half the awards (writing and humanitarian), written for half as long, or (here's a novel idea…) INTERVIEW HIM AND ASK HIM TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. His email is at the bottom of his column. (Duh!)

Racking this up to another ex-student trying to pay his student loans on the back of a true lgbt hero.

Keep blogging, honey… I hear that "blogging" thing pays really well. You'll get those loans paid off in no time.

Zzzzzz…

Really?.....

February 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Yawn.

Wow. Just like the trans mafia who are after Savage, you nit-pick through 20 years of writing to find two pieces that you feel allow you to tear down his, generally VERY AMAZING work for the lgbt community. (and the straight sex-positive community!)

Guess what Kirk? It Gets Better is an *open source* movement. Don't see enough people of color? You can't blame Dan. ANYONE can create and upload a video. If POC don't make and upload videos they contribute to their own invisibility. This isn't Savage's fault. I have seen tons of videos by POC. There's even a Latino channel, in Spanish. And many videos for the deaf using ASL!

If your not seeing it – you're willfully not looking. But yeah, savage is… TOTALLY RACIST!!!

And if Savage took down the post about Prop 8 and African American voters he should be commended. He spoke wrong – based on wrong information – and took down the post. He did the right thing. But yeah… That makes him TOTALLY RACIST!!!!

Do you have any concept of how many people died during Saddam's (what you now call) "secular" regime for being from the wrong tribe, wrong religion, or wrong sex or sexuality?!? Good times for Iraqis during those Saddam's days…! But, yeah because at the time Savage trusted that the job might be done skillfully, quickly without possibly becoming a quagmire under the blundering Bush regime he's, like, TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Jesus. It's so hard to read this bullshit about Savage all the time. Boo hoo. The world isn't everything you want it to be, and it couldn't possibly be anyone's fault but that asshole Dan Savage because he's TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Try again when you've done half the good Savage has, garnered half the awards (writing and humanitarian), written for half as long, or (here's a novel idea…) INTERVIEW HIM AND ASK HIM TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. His email is at the bottom of his column. (Duh!)

Racking this up to another ex-student trying to pay his student loans on the back of a true lgbt hero.

Keep blogging, honey… I hear that "blogging" thing pays really well. You'll get those loans paid off in no time.

Zzzzzz…

Really?.....

February 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Yawn.

Wow. Just like the trans mafia who are after Savage, you nit-pick through 20 years of writing to find two pieces that you feel allow you to tear down his, generally VERY AMAZING work for the lgbt community. (and the straight sex-positive community!)

Guess what Kirk? It Gets Better is an *open source* movement. Don't see enough people of color? You can't blame Dan. ANYONE can create and upload a video. If POC don't make and upload videos they contribute to their own invisibility. This isn't Savage's fault. I have seen tons of videos by POC. There's even a Latino channel, in Spanish. And many videos for the deaf using ASL!

If your not seeing it – you're willfully not looking. But yeah, savage is… TOTALLY RACIST!!!

And if Savage took down the post about Prop 8 and African American voters he should be commended. He spoke wrong – based on wrong information – and took down the post. He did the right thing. But yeah… That makes him TOTALLY RACIST!!!!

Do you have any concept of how many people died during Saddam's (what you now call) "secular" regime for being from the wrong tribe, wrong religion, or wrong sex or sexuality?!? Good times for Iraqis during those Saddam's days…! But, yeah because at the time Savage trusted that the job might be done skillfully, quickly without possibly becoming a quagmire under the blundering Bush regime he's, like, TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Jesus. It's so hard to read this bullshit about Savage all the time. Boo hoo. The world isn't everything you want it to be, and it couldn't possibly be anyone's fault but that asshole Dan Savage because he's TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Try again when you've done half the good Savage has, garnered half the awards (writing and humanitarian), written for half as long, or (here's a novel idea…) INTERVIEW HIM AND ASK HIM TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. His email is at the bottom of his column. (Duh!)

Racking this up to another ex-student trying to pay his student loans on the back of a true lgbt hero.

Keep blogging, honey… I hear that "blogging" thing pays really well. You'll get those loans paid off in no time.

Zzzzzz…

Really?.....

February 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Yawn.

Wow. Just like the trans mafia who are after Savage, you nit-pick through 20 years of writing to find two pieces that you feel allow you to tear down his, generally VERY AMAZING work for the lgbt community. (and the straight sex-positive community!)

Guess what Kirk? It Gets Better is an *open source* movement. Don't see enough people of color? You can't blame Dan. ANYONE can create and upload a video. If POC don't make and upload videos they contribute to their own invisibility. This isn't Savage's fault. I have seen tons of videos by POC. There's even a Latino channel, in Spanish. And many videos for the deaf using ASL!

If your not seeing it – you're willfully not looking. But yeah, savage is… TOTALLY RACIST!!!

And if Savage took down the post about Prop 8 and African American voters he should be commended. He spoke wrong – based on wrong information – and took down the post. He did the right thing. But yeah… That makes him TOTALLY RACIST!!!!

Do you have any concept of how many people died during Saddam's (what you now call) "secular" regime for being from the wrong tribe, wrong religion, or wrong sex or sexuality?!? Good times for Iraqis during those Saddam's days…! But, yeah because at the time Savage trusted that the job might be done skillfully, quickly without possibly becoming a quagmire under the blundering Bush regime he's, like, TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Jesus. It's so hard to read this bullshit about Savage all the time. Boo hoo. The world isn't everything you want it to be, and it couldn't possibly be anyone's fault but that asshole Dan Savage because he's TOTALLY RACIST!!!

Try again when you've done half the good Savage has, garnered half the awards (writing and humanitarian), written for half as long, or (here's a novel idea…) INTERVIEW HIM AND ASK HIM TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. His email is at the bottom of his column. (Duh!)

Racking this up to another ex-student trying to pay his student loans on the back of a true lgbt hero.

Keep blogging, honey… I hear that "blogging" thing pays really well. You'll get those loans paid off in no time.

Zzzzzz…

WH Southerland

March 1, 2012 at 5:19 am

Kirk, Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you've pointed how even in the most progressive circles we often reenforce or at least remain silent on subtle manners of oppression. I also see this time and time again with regards to disability and the disability rights movement during progressive struggles. (LGBT rights, Occupy, and others)
While I tend to agree with your analysis of IGB and other somewhat mainstream LGBT orgs/campaigns, I have one simple question for you.

What's your takeaway? Should people not support the work of IGB or HRC? I know they aren't perfect, noting is. But I also know they seem to be working, I and I think one reason for that is their non-confrontational, appeal to and support from white, middle-upper class, elements of society. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do other things, and for the record those two things Dan said are totally problematic, but I don't know if those statements should be lumped into the IGB campaign. I've seen the MGB project and it seems great.

We'll need all people and all groups fighting in whatever way they have the passion to in order to see success in this movement. All of the significant civil rights/human rights victories I can think of were the result of multiple campaigns, with many different strategies aimed at different targets. Don't you think we need as many people fighting in as many different ways as possible?

Again, I thank you for your article and look forward to your response.

WH Southerland

March 1, 2012 at 5:19 am

Kirk, Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you've pointed how even in the most progressive circles we often reenforce or at least remain silent on subtle manners of oppression. I also see this time and time again with regards to disability and the disability rights movement during progressive struggles. (LGBT rights, Occupy, and others)
While I tend to agree with your analysis of IGB and other somewhat mainstream LGBT orgs/campaigns, I have one simple question for you.

What's your takeaway? Should people not support the work of IGB or HRC? I know they aren't perfect, noting is. But I also know they seem to be working, I and I think one reason for that is their non-confrontational, appeal to and support from white, middle-upper class, elements of society. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do other things, and for the record those two things Dan said are totally problematic, but I don't know if those statements should be lumped into the IGB campaign. I've seen the MGB project and it seems great.

We'll need all people and all groups fighting in whatever way they have the passion to in order to see success in this movement. All of the significant civil rights/human rights victories I can think of were the result of multiple campaigns, with many different strategies aimed at different targets. Don't you think we need as many people fighting in as many different ways as possible?

Again, I thank you for your article and look forward to your response.

WH Southerland

March 1, 2012 at 5:19 am

Kirk, Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you've pointed how even in the most progressive circles we often reenforce or at least remain silent on subtle manners of oppression. I also see this time and time again with regards to disability and the disability rights movement during progressive struggles. (LGBT rights, Occupy, and others)
While I tend to agree with your analysis of IGB and other somewhat mainstream LGBT orgs/campaigns, I have one simple question for you.

What's your takeaway? Should people not support the work of IGB or HRC? I know they aren't perfect, noting is. But I also know they seem to be working, I and I think one reason for that is their non-confrontational, appeal to and support from white, middle-upper class, elements of society. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do other things, and for the record those two things Dan said are totally problematic, but I don't know if those statements should be lumped into the IGB campaign. I've seen the MGB project and it seems great.

We'll need all people and all groups fighting in whatever way they have the passion to in order to see success in this movement. All of the significant civil rights/human rights victories I can think of were the result of multiple campaigns, with many different strategies aimed at different targets. Don't you think we need as many people fighting in as many different ways as possible?

Again, I thank you for your article and look forward to your response.

WH Southerland

March 1, 2012 at 5:19 am

Kirk, Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you've pointed how even in the most progressive circles we often reenforce or at least remain silent on subtle manners of oppression. I also see this time and time again with regards to disability and the disability rights movement during progressive struggles. (LGBT rights, Occupy, and others)
While I tend to agree with your analysis of IGB and other somewhat mainstream LGBT orgs/campaigns, I have one simple question for you.

What's your takeaway? Should people not support the work of IGB or HRC? I know they aren't perfect, noting is. But I also know they seem to be working, I and I think one reason for that is their non-confrontational, appeal to and support from white, middle-upper class, elements of society. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do other things, and for the record those two things Dan said are totally problematic, but I don't know if those statements should be lumped into the IGB campaign. I've seen the MGB project and it seems great.

We'll need all people and all groups fighting in whatever way they have the passion to in order to see success in this movement. All of the significant civil rights/human rights victories I can think of were the result of multiple campaigns, with many different strategies aimed at different targets. Don't you think we need as many people fighting in as many different ways as possible?

Again, I thank you for your article and look forward to your response.

Jack Orlando

March 1, 2012 at 9:18 am

70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8. If 70% of gays voted in favor of stripping the right of blacks to marry, there would be issues with a dash of resentment.

Holy Christ, can we please stop pretending that widespread black homophobia is excusable because it's less excusable to hold blacks accountable for any wrong-doing? On 4 November 2008, 70% of California's blacks did something really shitty, something that's much more shitty than the horror that is being rightfully accused of homophobia.

Andre

March 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Racism doesn't excuse homophobia. But homophobia doesn't excuse racism either. The author is using his identity as a White male to challenge his own faction. That is powerful.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

What would also be powerful would be if more straight people of color admitted that homophobia is a huge problem in their community.

Andre

March 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm

I agree. That would be equally powerful.

People challenging their own faction is always difficult and powerful. It is easier not to challenge your own people. But again, one form of bigotry and social injustice does NOT excuse another.

Jack Orlando

March 1, 2012 at 9:18 am

70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8. If 70% of gays voted in favor of stripping the right of blacks to marry, there would be issues with a dash of resentment.

Holy Christ, can we please stop pretending that widespread black homophobia is excusable because it's less excusable to hold blacks accountable for any wrong-doing? On 4 November 2008, 70% of California's blacks did something really shitty, something that's much more shitty than the horror that is being rightfully accused of homophobia.

Andre

March 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Racism doesn't excuse homophobia. But homophobia doesn't excuse racism either. The author is using his identity as a White male to challenge his own faction. That is powerful.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

What would also be powerful would be if more straight people of color admitted that homophobia is a huge problem in their community.

Andre

March 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm

I agree. That would be equally powerful.

People challenging their own faction is always difficult and powerful. It is easier not to challenge your own people. But again, one form of bigotry and social injustice does NOT excuse another.

Jack Orlando

March 1, 2012 at 9:18 am

70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8. If 70% of gays voted in favor of stripping the right of blacks to marry, there would be issues with a dash of resentment.

Holy Christ, can we please stop pretending that widespread black homophobia is excusable because it's less excusable to hold blacks accountable for any wrong-doing? On 4 November 2008, 70% of California's blacks did something really shitty, something that's much more shitty than the horror that is being rightfully accused of homophobia.

Andre

March 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Racism doesn't excuse homophobia. But homophobia doesn't excuse racism either. The author is using his identity as a White male to challenge his own faction. That is powerful.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

What would also be powerful would be if more straight people of color admitted that homophobia is a huge problem in their community.

Andre

March 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm

I agree. That would be equally powerful.

People challenging their own faction is always difficult and powerful. It is easier not to challenge your own people. But again, one form of bigotry and social injustice does NOT excuse another.

Jack Orlando

March 1, 2012 at 9:18 am

70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8. If 70% of gays voted in favor of stripping the right of blacks to marry, there would be issues with a dash of resentment.

Holy Christ, can we please stop pretending that widespread black homophobia is excusable because it's less excusable to hold blacks accountable for any wrong-doing? On 4 November 2008, 70% of California's blacks did something really shitty, something that's much more shitty than the horror that is being rightfully accused of homophobia.

Andre

March 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Racism doesn't excuse homophobia. But homophobia doesn't excuse racism either. The author is using his identity as a White male to challenge his own faction. That is powerful.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

What would also be powerful would be if more straight people of color admitted that homophobia is a huge problem in their community.

Andre

March 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm

I agree. That would be equally powerful.

People challenging their own faction is always difficult and powerful. It is easier not to challenge your own people. But again, one form of bigotry and social injustice does NOT excuse another.

Ivan F.

March 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The blog entry that the author claims was deleted is, in another more accurate sense, easy to find: just Google a few words from it. It can be found here where it was originally posted: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homopho… as well as in a feature in the Stranger (the Seattle independent newspaper) here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/here-comes-the…
The feature in the Stranger, which is naturally the much more indelible and polished version of whatever Dan Savage had to say, explains that he does not blame the African American community for Prop 8 but feels that the queer community failed to reach out to the African American community. Why the author claimed the post was deleted is beyond me, and why he linked to a version only accessible via the Way Back Machine rather than the more polished and racially sensitive version that can be found via Google is a mystery as well.

The second quote lacks context. I'm happy to agree that Dan Savage is not an expert on foreign policy, but the author admits that this is about feelings not facts. And Dan Savage, in the article arguing for war in Iraq, argues for it because it will stop the violence against the Iraqi's who live there:
"Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator–and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"–i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear."
This may be short-sighted or ignorant, but it does not, as the author suggests, advocate for violence against Iraqi's in order to maintain the status quo for white gay Americans. Rather it claims that maintaining peace in America must be done at the cost of violence against Iraqis. Why the author would argue that this feeling is a symptom of self-centered myopia is another mystery.

Given these, it seems to me that the author here is grasping at straws in order to make an argument at the expense of Dan Savage. Dan is certainly politically myopic, but he's also someone whose livelihood comes from reading and responding to people's letters. Why then does the author, who would seem to want to help eliminate the issue of racism, myopia, and divisiveness in the queer community, write a letter not to Dan Savage imploring him to be more racially sensitive, but instead at Dan Savage "calling out" his racism? If the author's real motivation was to help fix the problem and bring the community together, this would hardly be the best method.

Skeptically, I am forced to assume, without better evidence, that the author's underlying motivation was in fact not connected to Dan Savage at all, but rather comes from a desire to be seen as one of the gay white men who have the racism thing "figured out". And he probably does. But this is one of the less productive ways to go about making sure that things get better that I can imagine. Less productive, by far, than encouraging your readers to make a youtube video telling gay kids that things get better.

Ivan F.

March 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The blog entry that the author claims was deleted is, in another more accurate sense, easy to find: just Google a few words from it. It can be found here where it was originally posted: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homopho… as well as in a feature in the Stranger (the Seattle independent newspaper) here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/here-comes-the…
The feature in the Stranger, which is naturally the much more indelible and polished version of whatever Dan Savage had to say, explains that he does not blame the African American community for Prop 8 but feels that the queer community failed to reach out to the African American community. Why the author claimed the post was deleted is beyond me, and why he linked to a version only accessible via the Way Back Machine rather than the more polished and racially sensitive version that can be found via Google is a mystery as well.

The second quote lacks context. I'm happy to agree that Dan Savage is not an expert on foreign policy, but the author admits that this is about feelings not facts. And Dan Savage, in the article arguing for war in Iraq, argues for it because it will stop the violence against the Iraqi's who live there:
"Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator–and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"–i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear."
This may be short-sighted or ignorant, but it does not, as the author suggests, advocate for violence against Iraqi's in order to maintain the status quo for white gay Americans. Rather it claims that maintaining peace in America must be done at the cost of violence against Iraqis. Why the author would argue that this feeling is a symptom of self-centered myopia is another mystery.

Given these, it seems to me that the author here is grasping at straws in order to make an argument at the expense of Dan Savage. Dan is certainly politically myopic, but he's also someone whose livelihood comes from reading and responding to people's letters. Why then does the author, who would seem to want to help eliminate the issue of racism, myopia, and divisiveness in the queer community, write a letter not to Dan Savage imploring him to be more racially sensitive, but instead at Dan Savage "calling out" his racism? If the author's real motivation was to help fix the problem and bring the community together, this would hardly be the best method.

Skeptically, I am forced to assume, without better evidence, that the author's underlying motivation was in fact not connected to Dan Savage at all, but rather comes from a desire to be seen as one of the gay white men who have the racism thing "figured out". And he probably does. But this is one of the less productive ways to go about making sure that things get better that I can imagine. Less productive, by far, than encouraging your readers to make a youtube video telling gay kids that things get better.

Ivan F.

March 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The blog entry that the author claims was deleted is, in another more accurate sense, easy to find: just Google a few words from it. It can be found here where it was originally posted: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homopho… as well as in a feature in the Stranger (the Seattle independent newspaper) here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/here-comes-the…
The feature in the Stranger, which is naturally the much more indelible and polished version of whatever Dan Savage had to say, explains that he does not blame the African American community for Prop 8 but feels that the queer community failed to reach out to the African American community. Why the author claimed the post was deleted is beyond me, and why he linked to a version only accessible via the Way Back Machine rather than the more polished and racially sensitive version that can be found via Google is a mystery as well.

The second quote lacks context. I'm happy to agree that Dan Savage is not an expert on foreign policy, but the author admits that this is about feelings not facts. And Dan Savage, in the article arguing for war in Iraq, argues for it because it will stop the violence against the Iraqi's who live there:
"Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator–and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"–i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear."
This may be short-sighted or ignorant, but it does not, as the author suggests, advocate for violence against Iraqi's in order to maintain the status quo for white gay Americans. Rather it claims that maintaining peace in America must be done at the cost of violence against Iraqis. Why the author would argue that this feeling is a symptom of self-centered myopia is another mystery.

Given these, it seems to me that the author here is grasping at straws in order to make an argument at the expense of Dan Savage. Dan is certainly politically myopic, but he's also someone whose livelihood comes from reading and responding to people's letters. Why then does the author, who would seem to want to help eliminate the issue of racism, myopia, and divisiveness in the queer community, write a letter not to Dan Savage imploring him to be more racially sensitive, but instead at Dan Savage "calling out" his racism? If the author's real motivation was to help fix the problem and bring the community together, this would hardly be the best method.

Skeptically, I am forced to assume, without better evidence, that the author's underlying motivation was in fact not connected to Dan Savage at all, but rather comes from a desire to be seen as one of the gay white men who have the racism thing "figured out". And he probably does. But this is one of the less productive ways to go about making sure that things get better that I can imagine. Less productive, by far, than encouraging your readers to make a youtube video telling gay kids that things get better.

Ivan F.

March 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The blog entry that the author claims was deleted is, in another more accurate sense, easy to find: just Google a few words from it. It can be found here where it was originally posted: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homopho… as well as in a feature in the Stranger (the Seattle independent newspaper) here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/here-comes-the…
The feature in the Stranger, which is naturally the much more indelible and polished version of whatever Dan Savage had to say, explains that he does not blame the African American community for Prop 8 but feels that the queer community failed to reach out to the African American community. Why the author claimed the post was deleted is beyond me, and why he linked to a version only accessible via the Way Back Machine rather than the more polished and racially sensitive version that can be found via Google is a mystery as well.

The second quote lacks context. I'm happy to agree that Dan Savage is not an expert on foreign policy, but the author admits that this is about feelings not facts. And Dan Savage, in the article arguing for war in Iraq, argues for it because it will stop the violence against the Iraqi's who live there:
"Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator–and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"–i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear."
This may be short-sighted or ignorant, but it does not, as the author suggests, advocate for violence against Iraqi's in order to maintain the status quo for white gay Americans. Rather it claims that maintaining peace in America must be done at the cost of violence against Iraqis. Why the author would argue that this feeling is a symptom of self-centered myopia is another mystery.

Given these, it seems to me that the author here is grasping at straws in order to make an argument at the expense of Dan Savage. Dan is certainly politically myopic, but he's also someone whose livelihood comes from reading and responding to people's letters. Why then does the author, who would seem to want to help eliminate the issue of racism, myopia, and divisiveness in the queer community, write a letter not to Dan Savage imploring him to be more racially sensitive, but instead at Dan Savage "calling out" his racism? If the author's real motivation was to help fix the problem and bring the community together, this would hardly be the best method.

Skeptically, I am forced to assume, without better evidence, that the author's underlying motivation was in fact not connected to Dan Savage at all, but rather comes from a desire to be seen as one of the gay white men who have the racism thing "figured out". And he probably does. But this is one of the less productive ways to go about making sure that things get better that I can imagine. Less productive, by far, than encouraging your readers to make a youtube video telling gay kids that things get better.

jokie cola

March 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Such a brilliant article, I'm glad to know that gay white men like Kirk actually exist. I have always felt that the It Gets Better videos are targeting LGBT white adults, not youth. There is no data indicating that these videos are effective methods of suicide prevention. They are just PR campaigns to make LGBT white people feel good and break out their debit cards for donations.

jokie cola

March 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Such a brilliant article, I'm glad to know that gay white men like Kirk actually exist. I have always felt that the It Gets Better videos are targeting LGBT white adults, not youth. There is no data indicating that these videos are effective methods of suicide prevention. They are just PR campaigns to make LGBT white people feel good and break out their debit cards for donations.

jokie cola

March 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Such a brilliant article, I'm glad to know that gay white men like Kirk actually exist. I have always felt that the It Gets Better videos are targeting LGBT white adults, not youth. There is no data indicating that these videos are effective methods of suicide prevention. They are just PR campaigns to make LGBT white people feel good and break out their debit cards for donations.

jokie cola

March 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Such a brilliant article, I'm glad to know that gay white men like Kirk actually exist. I have always felt that the It Gets Better videos are targeting LGBT white adults, not youth. There is no data indicating that these videos are effective methods of suicide prevention. They are just PR campaigns to make LGBT white people feel good and break out their debit cards for donations.

willa taylor

March 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Thanks for this. It is always nice to see racism called out by someone who is not a person of color.

willa taylor

March 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Thanks for this. It is always nice to see racism called out by someone who is not a person of color.

willa taylor

March 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Thanks for this. It is always nice to see racism called out by someone who is not a person of color.

willa taylor

March 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Thanks for this. It is always nice to see racism called out by someone who is not a person of color.

Excellent article! As a WOC I've found Savage's campaigning tiring and troublesome and I've never been able at explaining it well, and this article helped a lot. Has the man never heard of intersectionality? His false equivalences and the things he says 'in the name' of (white) homosexuality is frustrating and lacks dimension and thought.

Rachel

March 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Excellent article! As a WOC I've found Savage's campaigning tiring and troublesome and I've never been able at explaining it well, and this article helped a lot. Has the man never heard of intersectionality? His false equivalences and the things he says 'in the name' of (white) homosexuality is frustrating and lacks dimension and thought.

Rachel

March 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Excellent article! As a WOC I've found Savage's campaigning tiring and troublesome and I've never been able at explaining it well, and this article helped a lot. Has the man never heard of intersectionality? His false equivalences and the things he says 'in the name' of (white) homosexuality is frustrating and lacks dimension and thought.

Rachel

March 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Excellent article! As a WOC I've found Savage's campaigning tiring and troublesome and I've never been able at explaining it well, and this article helped a lot. Has the man never heard of intersectionality? His false equivalences and the things he says 'in the name' of (white) homosexuality is frustrating and lacks dimension and thought.

I knew there would be all kinds of "yes, but" type comments and resistances attached to this article that really asks, especially white gay men of a certain mentality, to think outside of your white privileged and often equally class privileged box/bubble for a change. Change is hard. I understand. Keep trying.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Jack Orlando makes a good point. Are the straight black people who voted our rights away going to think of their straight (and mostly Christian) privilege? They've got it, whether they want to admit it or not, but it seems race is the only main issue, and GLBT and gender are not as important, especially if the gay and/or female person is white. Why shoudn't they seen somewhat equally? Do not the problems of other forms of oppression deserve equal consideration? You say that IGB is putting white gays above people of color (I agree its focus is too narrow)-but what are you doing? Essentiatlly the opposite, saying that race trumps any other form of oppression, and that it's okay to use racism as an excuse to discriminate against other groups, especially since those other groups can easily intersect with race. I didn't realize being gay brought privilege with it (white and male does, but not gay, and that's not even mentioned). Too bad Matthew Shepard didn't get the gay privilege. Yes, gay white men are enfranchised b/c of being male and white (but not as gay people, as they don't have the right to marry). Were the black straight people who voted against them disenfranchised that day? You can be oppressed in one area and privileged in another, race is not the only way someone can be oppressed. If 70% of the straight black people in CA went to the polls and voted to take away someone's rights just b/c of their sexuality-then yes, they did exercise a form of straight privilege. They can go home to their spouses, while GLBTQ people of all colors have to be content with "partners" and no legal rights as a couple. Quite sad that so many members of a community that has been so oppressed itself sees no problem in doing the same to others. It is extremely unfair to use the oppression of their community as an excuse to not be held accountable for what they did. If certain straight black people vote against GLBT rights (ironically b/c of a religion they got from being slaves), well, it's excusable, and apparently it's racist to say otherwise. They of course are voting against the rights of queer people of color too. I'm not a big fan of savage at all-I'm not a white gay male, I'm transgender, one of the many "isms" he's insulted But what seriously bothers me is the authors implication that race is the form of oppression that trumps all others-that we can't criticize the homophobia of unfortunately a big part of the black straight community (of course they are not the only community, but we get to criticize most of the others), that they get a pass, and that gender and sexuality are not as important. Racism is not an excuse for homophobia and vice versa. How would it be, I wonder, if 70% of gay white people voted to take away the rights of black people to marry? Of course we should criticize white gay racists. But guess what-the knife cuts both ways, and until more people admit that, we're going to keep running into this problem. And when you talk about not minimizing someone else's oppression in comparison to your own, and then turn around and do the very thing you just said not to do, you immediately come off as a hypocrite.

I knew there would be all kinds of "yes, but" type comments and resistances attached to this article that really asks, especially white gay men of a certain mentality, to think outside of your white privileged and often equally class privileged box/bubble for a change. Change is hard. I understand. Keep trying.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Jack Orlando makes a good point. Are the straight black people who voted our rights away going to think of their straight (and mostly Christian) privilege? They've got it, whether they want to admit it or not, but it seems race is the only main issue, and GLBT and gender are not as important, especially if the gay and/or female person is white. Why shoudn't they seen somewhat equally? Do not the problems of other forms of oppression deserve equal consideration? You say that IGB is putting white gays above people of color (I agree its focus is too narrow)-but what are you doing? Essentiatlly the opposite, saying that race trumps any other form of oppression, and that it's okay to use racism as an excuse to discriminate against other groups, especially since those other groups can easily intersect with race. I didn't realize being gay brought privilege with it (white and male does, but not gay, and that's not even mentioned). Too bad Matthew Shepard didn't get the gay privilege. Yes, gay white men are enfranchised b/c of being male and white (but not as gay people, as they don't have the right to marry). Were the black straight people who voted against them disenfranchised that day? You can be oppressed in one area and privileged in another, race is not the only way someone can be oppressed. If 70% of the straight black people in CA went to the polls and voted to take away someone's rights just b/c of their sexuality-then yes, they did exercise a form of straight privilege. They can go home to their spouses, while GLBTQ people of all colors have to be content with "partners" and no legal rights as a couple. Quite sad that so many members of a community that has been so oppressed itself sees no problem in doing the same to others. It is extremely unfair to use the oppression of their community as an excuse to not be held accountable for what they did. If certain straight black people vote against GLBT rights (ironically b/c of a religion they got from being slaves), well, it's excusable, and apparently it's racist to say otherwise. They of course are voting against the rights of queer people of color too. I'm not a big fan of savage at all-I'm not a white gay male, I'm transgender, one of the many "isms" he's insulted But what seriously bothers me is the authors implication that race is the form of oppression that trumps all others-that we can't criticize the homophobia of unfortunately a big part of the black straight community (of course they are not the only community, but we get to criticize most of the others), that they get a pass, and that gender and sexuality are not as important. Racism is not an excuse for homophobia and vice versa. How would it be, I wonder, if 70% of gay white people voted to take away the rights of black people to marry? Of course we should criticize white gay racists. But guess what-the knife cuts both ways, and until more people admit that, we're going to keep running into this problem. And when you talk about not minimizing someone else's oppression in comparison to your own, and then turn around and do the very thing you just said not to do, you immediately come off as a hypocrite.

I knew there would be all kinds of "yes, but" type comments and resistances attached to this article that really asks, especially white gay men of a certain mentality, to think outside of your white privileged and often equally class privileged box/bubble for a change. Change is hard. I understand. Keep trying.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Jack Orlando makes a good point. Are the straight black people who voted our rights away going to think of their straight (and mostly Christian) privilege? They've got it, whether they want to admit it or not, but it seems race is the only main issue, and GLBT and gender are not as important, especially if the gay and/or female person is white. Why shoudn't they seen somewhat equally? Do not the problems of other forms of oppression deserve equal consideration? You say that IGB is putting white gays above people of color (I agree its focus is too narrow)-but what are you doing? Essentiatlly the opposite, saying that race trumps any other form of oppression, and that it's okay to use racism as an excuse to discriminate against other groups, especially since those other groups can easily intersect with race. I didn't realize being gay brought privilege with it (white and male does, but not gay, and that's not even mentioned). Too bad Matthew Shepard didn't get the gay privilege. Yes, gay white men are enfranchised b/c of being male and white (but not as gay people, as they don't have the right to marry). Were the black straight people who voted against them disenfranchised that day? You can be oppressed in one area and privileged in another, race is not the only way someone can be oppressed. If 70% of the straight black people in CA went to the polls and voted to take away someone's rights just b/c of their sexuality-then yes, they did exercise a form of straight privilege. They can go home to their spouses, while GLBTQ people of all colors have to be content with "partners" and no legal rights as a couple. Quite sad that so many members of a community that has been so oppressed itself sees no problem in doing the same to others. It is extremely unfair to use the oppression of their community as an excuse to not be held accountable for what they did. If certain straight black people vote against GLBT rights (ironically b/c of a religion they got from being slaves), well, it's excusable, and apparently it's racist to say otherwise. They of course are voting against the rights of queer people of color too. I'm not a big fan of savage at all-I'm not a white gay male, I'm transgender, one of the many "isms" he's insulted But what seriously bothers me is the authors implication that race is the form of oppression that trumps all others-that we can't criticize the homophobia of unfortunately a big part of the black straight community (of course they are not the only community, but we get to criticize most of the others), that they get a pass, and that gender and sexuality are not as important. Racism is not an excuse for homophobia and vice versa. How would it be, I wonder, if 70% of gay white people voted to take away the rights of black people to marry? Of course we should criticize white gay racists. But guess what-the knife cuts both ways, and until more people admit that, we're going to keep running into this problem. And when you talk about not minimizing someone else's oppression in comparison to your own, and then turn around and do the very thing you just said not to do, you immediately come off as a hypocrite.

I knew there would be all kinds of "yes, but" type comments and resistances attached to this article that really asks, especially white gay men of a certain mentality, to think outside of your white privileged and often equally class privileged box/bubble for a change. Change is hard. I understand. Keep trying.

M

March 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Jack Orlando makes a good point. Are the straight black people who voted our rights away going to think of their straight (and mostly Christian) privilege? They've got it, whether they want to admit it or not, but it seems race is the only main issue, and GLBT and gender are not as important, especially if the gay and/or female person is white. Why shoudn't they seen somewhat equally? Do not the problems of other forms of oppression deserve equal consideration? You say that IGB is putting white gays above people of color (I agree its focus is too narrow)-but what are you doing? Essentiatlly the opposite, saying that race trumps any other form of oppression, and that it's okay to use racism as an excuse to discriminate against other groups, especially since those other groups can easily intersect with race. I didn't realize being gay brought privilege with it (white and male does, but not gay, and that's not even mentioned). Too bad Matthew Shepard didn't get the gay privilege. Yes, gay white men are enfranchised b/c of being male and white (but not as gay people, as they don't have the right to marry). Were the black straight people who voted against them disenfranchised that day? You can be oppressed in one area and privileged in another, race is not the only way someone can be oppressed. If 70% of the straight black people in CA went to the polls and voted to take away someone's rights just b/c of their sexuality-then yes, they did exercise a form of straight privilege. They can go home to their spouses, while GLBTQ people of all colors have to be content with "partners" and no legal rights as a couple. Quite sad that so many members of a community that has been so oppressed itself sees no problem in doing the same to others. It is extremely unfair to use the oppression of their community as an excuse to not be held accountable for what they did. If certain straight black people vote against GLBT rights (ironically b/c of a religion they got from being slaves), well, it's excusable, and apparently it's racist to say otherwise. They of course are voting against the rights of queer people of color too. I'm not a big fan of savage at all-I'm not a white gay male, I'm transgender, one of the many "isms" he's insulted But what seriously bothers me is the authors implication that race is the form of oppression that trumps all others-that we can't criticize the homophobia of unfortunately a big part of the black straight community (of course they are not the only community, but we get to criticize most of the others), that they get a pass, and that gender and sexuality are not as important. Racism is not an excuse for homophobia and vice versa. How would it be, I wonder, if 70% of gay white people voted to take away the rights of black people to marry? Of course we should criticize white gay racists. But guess what-the knife cuts both ways, and until more people admit that, we're going to keep running into this problem. And when you talk about not minimizing someone else's oppression in comparison to your own, and then turn around and do the very thing you just said not to do, you immediately come off as a hypocrite.

SG

March 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Thank you for writing this article! You should also write about how Dan Savage practices bisexual erasure and how he's been biphobic for decades and continues to be.

It gets better is just a bullshit PR campaign, nothing more. Telling kids to put up with bullying until they leave school is not constructive advice. It’s cruel. School boards, school administrators, teachers, etc, need to have zero tolerance policy for bullying. It’s not uncommon for teachers and even some school administrators to bully unpopular kids themselves. That’s where the changes need to be made… The reason “It Gets Better” caught on with politicians and celebrities is because it’s great PR and it requires absolutely NOTHING from them in the way of real action.

The fact that Dan Savage is highly biphobic, transphobic, and even racist as this writing demonstrates makes him a total hypocrite and the last person who should be doing any sort of PR work for or with GLBT youth. It's clear he started his "It gets better" project not to help GLBT youth but to get a reality TV show on MTV since he's a media/fame whore.

Those of us in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest know that Dan Savage is and always has been an opportunistic parasite who will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if you don’t fit into his vision of right wing Log-cabin-lite politics. He supported the 2nd Iraq war as the blog's author said in the essay above. The It Gets Better campaign does nothing to empower LGBT youth. in fact, we are seeing a whole generation of LGBT kids make these videos and then kill themselves, while Dan Savage tells them to pull themselves to up by their bootstraps and he profits off the dead by hawking his self-help books and reality TV show on MTV. what we need is action and strategy, a battle plan to help gay kids survive, and deal directly with the homophobes/biphobes/transphobes (for example, how to file a complaint and lawsuit against your school district) and not snake oil charms like the It Gets Better media sham.

SG

March 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Thank you for writing this article! You should also write about how Dan Savage practices bisexual erasure and how he's been biphobic for decades and continues to be.

It gets better is just a bullshit PR campaign, nothing more. Telling kids to put up with bullying until they leave school is not constructive advice. It’s cruel. School boards, school administrators, teachers, etc, need to have zero tolerance policy for bullying. It’s not uncommon for teachers and even some school administrators to bully unpopular kids themselves. That’s where the changes need to be made… The reason “It Gets Better” caught on with politicians and celebrities is because it’s great PR and it requires absolutely NOTHING from them in the way of real action.

The fact that Dan Savage is highly biphobic, transphobic, and even racist as this writing demonstrates makes him a total hypocrite and the last person who should be doing any sort of PR work for or with GLBT youth. It's clear he started his "It gets better" project not to help GLBT youth but to get a reality TV show on MTV since he's a media/fame whore.

Those of us in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest know that Dan Savage is and always has been an opportunistic parasite who will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if you don’t fit into his vision of right wing Log-cabin-lite politics. He supported the 2nd Iraq war as the blog's author said in the essay above. The It Gets Better campaign does nothing to empower LGBT youth. in fact, we are seeing a whole generation of LGBT kids make these videos and then kill themselves, while Dan Savage tells them to pull themselves to up by their bootstraps and he profits off the dead by hawking his self-help books and reality TV show on MTV. what we need is action and strategy, a battle plan to help gay kids survive, and deal directly with the homophobes/biphobes/transphobes (for example, how to file a complaint and lawsuit against your school district) and not snake oil charms like the It Gets Better media sham.

SG

March 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Thank you for writing this article! You should also write about how Dan Savage practices bisexual erasure and how he's been biphobic for decades and continues to be.

It gets better is just a bullshit PR campaign, nothing more. Telling kids to put up with bullying until they leave school is not constructive advice. It’s cruel. School boards, school administrators, teachers, etc, need to have zero tolerance policy for bullying. It’s not uncommon for teachers and even some school administrators to bully unpopular kids themselves. That’s where the changes need to be made… The reason “It Gets Better” caught on with politicians and celebrities is because it’s great PR and it requires absolutely NOTHING from them in the way of real action.

The fact that Dan Savage is highly biphobic, transphobic, and even racist as this writing demonstrates makes him a total hypocrite and the last person who should be doing any sort of PR work for or with GLBT youth. It's clear he started his "It gets better" project not to help GLBT youth but to get a reality TV show on MTV since he's a media/fame whore.

Those of us in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest know that Dan Savage is and always has been an opportunistic parasite who will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if you don’t fit into his vision of right wing Log-cabin-lite politics. He supported the 2nd Iraq war as the blog's author said in the essay above. The It Gets Better campaign does nothing to empower LGBT youth. in fact, we are seeing a whole generation of LGBT kids make these videos and then kill themselves, while Dan Savage tells them to pull themselves to up by their bootstraps and he profits off the dead by hawking his self-help books and reality TV show on MTV. what we need is action and strategy, a battle plan to help gay kids survive, and deal directly with the homophobes/biphobes/transphobes (for example, how to file a complaint and lawsuit against your school district) and not snake oil charms like the It Gets Better media sham.

SG

March 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Thank you for writing this article! You should also write about how Dan Savage practices bisexual erasure and how he's been biphobic for decades and continues to be.

It gets better is just a bullshit PR campaign, nothing more. Telling kids to put up with bullying until they leave school is not constructive advice. It’s cruel. School boards, school administrators, teachers, etc, need to have zero tolerance policy for bullying. It’s not uncommon for teachers and even some school administrators to bully unpopular kids themselves. That’s where the changes need to be made… The reason “It Gets Better” caught on with politicians and celebrities is because it’s great PR and it requires absolutely NOTHING from them in the way of real action.

The fact that Dan Savage is highly biphobic, transphobic, and even racist as this writing demonstrates makes him a total hypocrite and the last person who should be doing any sort of PR work for or with GLBT youth. It's clear he started his "It gets better" project not to help GLBT youth but to get a reality TV show on MTV since he's a media/fame whore.

Those of us in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest know that Dan Savage is and always has been an opportunistic parasite who will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if you don’t fit into his vision of right wing Log-cabin-lite politics. He supported the 2nd Iraq war as the blog's author said in the essay above. The It Gets Better campaign does nothing to empower LGBT youth. in fact, we are seeing a whole generation of LGBT kids make these videos and then kill themselves, while Dan Savage tells them to pull themselves to up by their bootstraps and he profits off the dead by hawking his self-help books and reality TV show on MTV. what we need is action and strategy, a battle plan to help gay kids survive, and deal directly with the homophobes/biphobes/transphobes (for example, how to file a complaint and lawsuit against your school district) and not snake oil charms like the It Gets Better media sham.

Thanks for this point of view. As others have been taking about the racist statements, this is the first one I have witness. Though I know very well about his biphobia on me and others who are bi, I will continue to look into and make know in our bi media. cheers

Thanks for this point of view. As others have been taking about the racist statements, this is the first one I have witness. Though I know very well about his biphobia on me and others who are bi, I will continue to look into and make know in our bi media. cheers

Thanks for this point of view. As others have been taking about the racist statements, this is the first one I have witness. Though I know very well about his biphobia on me and others who are bi, I will continue to look into and make know in our bi media. cheers

Thanks for this point of view. As others have been taking about the racist statements, this is the first one I have witness. Though I know very well about his biphobia on me and others who are bi, I will continue to look into and make know in our bi media. cheers

David

March 6, 2012 at 3:45 am

Kirk,
This article was wonderfully argued and well put. So much work has to be done to transform attitudes. I find the militarisation of lgbt attitudes very disturbing. The recruitment of lgbt members in culture wars, xenophobia and racism needs to be exposed. Attitudes like Dan Savage's are not only are racist, orientalist and cultural ignorant, he undermines the work that so many grassroots organisations and homegrown organisations that fight, support, and create dialogue for lgbt rights in their own countries, for migrant lgbt rights, and it makes it more difficult for the many lgbt people of all colours who are working to build stronger and safer communities at home and abroad. Thank you so much for your work. I look forward to your next articles.

Cheers,
David

David

March 6, 2012 at 3:45 am

Kirk,
This article was wonderfully argued and well put. So much work has to be done to transform attitudes. I find the militarisation of lgbt attitudes very disturbing. The recruitment of lgbt members in culture wars, xenophobia and racism needs to be exposed. Attitudes like Dan Savage's are not only are racist, orientalist and cultural ignorant, he undermines the work that so many grassroots organisations and homegrown organisations that fight, support, and create dialogue for lgbt rights in their own countries, for migrant lgbt rights, and it makes it more difficult for the many lgbt people of all colours who are working to build stronger and safer communities at home and abroad. Thank you so much for your work. I look forward to your next articles.

Cheers,
David

David

March 6, 2012 at 3:45 am

Kirk,
This article was wonderfully argued and well put. So much work has to be done to transform attitudes. I find the militarisation of lgbt attitudes very disturbing. The recruitment of lgbt members in culture wars, xenophobia and racism needs to be exposed. Attitudes like Dan Savage's are not only are racist, orientalist and cultural ignorant, he undermines the work that so many grassroots organisations and homegrown organisations that fight, support, and create dialogue for lgbt rights in their own countries, for migrant lgbt rights, and it makes it more difficult for the many lgbt people of all colours who are working to build stronger and safer communities at home and abroad. Thank you so much for your work. I look forward to your next articles.

Cheers,
David

David

March 6, 2012 at 3:45 am

Kirk,
This article was wonderfully argued and well put. So much work has to be done to transform attitudes. I find the militarisation of lgbt attitudes very disturbing. The recruitment of lgbt members in culture wars, xenophobia and racism needs to be exposed. Attitudes like Dan Savage's are not only are racist, orientalist and cultural ignorant, he undermines the work that so many grassroots organisations and homegrown organisations that fight, support, and create dialogue for lgbt rights in their own countries, for migrant lgbt rights, and it makes it more difficult for the many lgbt people of all colours who are working to build stronger and safer communities at home and abroad. Thank you so much for your work. I look forward to your next articles.

Cheers,
David

Steve A. Williams

March 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Bravo!

This is a great analysis of the dynamics of white privilege, gender, and sexuality.

I applaud you for making it plain that violence is a problem in our world regardless of it's target. Your essay underscores the anger and resentment many blacks including black LGBT people feel towards white LGBT people who associate their actions on behalf of LGBT liberation with that of the civil rights movement for racial equality.

As a gay African American, I believe that the matter is one of ending inequality and injustice. In that regard the two struggles are similar. However,it is hard for many black people to accept this when those who most often say it are white gay men whose privilege make such comparisons a luxury others still cannot afford.

Steve A. Williams

March 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Bravo!

This is a great analysis of the dynamics of white privilege, gender, and sexuality.

I applaud you for making it plain that violence is a problem in our world regardless of it's target. Your essay underscores the anger and resentment many blacks including black LGBT people feel towards white LGBT people who associate their actions on behalf of LGBT liberation with that of the civil rights movement for racial equality.

As a gay African American, I believe that the matter is one of ending inequality and injustice. In that regard the two struggles are similar. However,it is hard for many black people to accept this when those who most often say it are white gay men whose privilege make such comparisons a luxury others still cannot afford.

Steve A. Williams

March 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Bravo!

This is a great analysis of the dynamics of white privilege, gender, and sexuality.

I applaud you for making it plain that violence is a problem in our world regardless of it's target. Your essay underscores the anger and resentment many blacks including black LGBT people feel towards white LGBT people who associate their actions on behalf of LGBT liberation with that of the civil rights movement for racial equality.

As a gay African American, I believe that the matter is one of ending inequality and injustice. In that regard the two struggles are similar. However,it is hard for many black people to accept this when those who most often say it are white gay men whose privilege make such comparisons a luxury others still cannot afford.

Steve A. Williams

March 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Bravo!

This is a great analysis of the dynamics of white privilege, gender, and sexuality.

I applaud you for making it plain that violence is a problem in our world regardless of it's target. Your essay underscores the anger and resentment many blacks including black LGBT people feel towards white LGBT people who associate their actions on behalf of LGBT liberation with that of the civil rights movement for racial equality.

As a gay African American, I believe that the matter is one of ending inequality and injustice. In that regard the two struggles are similar. However,it is hard for many black people to accept this when those who most often say it are white gay men whose privilege make such comparisons a luxury others still cannot afford.

Graham

March 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm

It is the concepts of "white priveledge" and "colorblindness" that keep individuals of color marginalized in their various circles when compared to their caucasian counterparts. White america is lazy in that regard. They fool themselves into believing that we're all the same and that OBAMA 2008 was the official end of western racism. Bull. They lie to themselves when they don't realize the pervasive, powerful and intricate manifestations of racism and classism in modern-day society. Colorblindness also means they ignore all concepts of ethnic identity and history, therefore, its an effort to numb themselves and keep ignorant of the racism THAT AMERICA WAS ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED UPON. The thing about racism, homophobia, sexism, creedism and all prejudice really, that white, middle-class people don't seem to understand is that it effects everyone, no body with a pulse can be exempt from prejudice. Open your eyes and witness the colors of the rainbow, realizing that my struggle could easily have been yours and as a HUMAN BEING you should understand the moral implications of all types of prejudice and the fact that it affects the entire community.

Graham

March 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm

It is the concepts of "white priveledge" and "colorblindness" that keep individuals of color marginalized in their various circles when compared to their caucasian counterparts. White america is lazy in that regard. They fool themselves into believing that we're all the same and that OBAMA 2008 was the official end of western racism. Bull. They lie to themselves when they don't realize the pervasive, powerful and intricate manifestations of racism and classism in modern-day society. Colorblindness also means they ignore all concepts of ethnic identity and history, therefore, its an effort to numb themselves and keep ignorant of the racism THAT AMERICA WAS ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED UPON. The thing about racism, homophobia, sexism, creedism and all prejudice really, that white, middle-class people don't seem to understand is that it effects everyone, no body with a pulse can be exempt from prejudice. Open your eyes and witness the colors of the rainbow, realizing that my struggle could easily have been yours and as a HUMAN BEING you should understand the moral implications of all types of prejudice and the fact that it affects the entire community.

Graham

March 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm

It is the concepts of "white priveledge" and "colorblindness" that keep individuals of color marginalized in their various circles when compared to their caucasian counterparts. White america is lazy in that regard. They fool themselves into believing that we're all the same and that OBAMA 2008 was the official end of western racism. Bull. They lie to themselves when they don't realize the pervasive, powerful and intricate manifestations of racism and classism in modern-day society. Colorblindness also means they ignore all concepts of ethnic identity and history, therefore, its an effort to numb themselves and keep ignorant of the racism THAT AMERICA WAS ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED UPON. The thing about racism, homophobia, sexism, creedism and all prejudice really, that white, middle-class people don't seem to understand is that it effects everyone, no body with a pulse can be exempt from prejudice. Open your eyes and witness the colors of the rainbow, realizing that my struggle could easily have been yours and as a HUMAN BEING you should understand the moral implications of all types of prejudice and the fact that it affects the entire community.

Graham

March 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm

It is the concepts of "white priveledge" and "colorblindness" that keep individuals of color marginalized in their various circles when compared to their caucasian counterparts. White america is lazy in that regard. They fool themselves into believing that we're all the same and that OBAMA 2008 was the official end of western racism. Bull. They lie to themselves when they don't realize the pervasive, powerful and intricate manifestations of racism and classism in modern-day society. Colorblindness also means they ignore all concepts of ethnic identity and history, therefore, its an effort to numb themselves and keep ignorant of the racism THAT AMERICA WAS ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED UPON. The thing about racism, homophobia, sexism, creedism and all prejudice really, that white, middle-class people don't seem to understand is that it effects everyone, no body with a pulse can be exempt from prejudice. Open your eyes and witness the colors of the rainbow, realizing that my struggle could easily have been yours and as a HUMAN BEING you should understand the moral implications of all types of prejudice and the fact that it affects the entire community.

Jammy

March 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Ahhh, the 70% number. The real deal is that 70% number people like use to justify their real feeling is really a cnn poll of 122 people. So 70% of 122 people. They knew what bait to use for some of you guys.

Jammy

March 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Ahhh, the 70% number. The real deal is that 70% number people like use to justify their real feeling is really a cnn poll of 122 people. So 70% of 122 people. They knew what bait to use for some of you guys.

Jammy

March 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Ahhh, the 70% number. The real deal is that 70% number people like use to justify their real feeling is really a cnn poll of 122 people. So 70% of 122 people. They knew what bait to use for some of you guys.

Jammy

March 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Ahhh, the 70% number. The real deal is that 70% number people like use to justify their real feeling is really a cnn poll of 122 people. So 70% of 122 people. They knew what bait to use for some of you guys.